Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index

The economic impact of the utilization of liver allografts with high donor risk index

The disparity between the organ supply and the demand for liver transplantation (LT) has resulted in the growing utilization of 'marginal donor' organs. While economic outcomes for subsets of 'marginal' organs have been described for renal transplantation, similar analyses have not been performed for LT. Using UNOS data for 17 710 LTs performed between 2002 and 2005, we assessed the relationship between recipient model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, organ quality as defined by donor risk index (DRI, Feng et al. 2005) and hospital length of stay (LOS). Single-center cost-accounting data for 338 liver transplants were then analyzed with a multivariate linear regression model to determine the estimated cost associated with a day of LOS. Overall, 8.4% of donor organs were classified as high risk (DRI > 2-2.5) and 1.9% as very high risk (DRI > 2.5). In the lowest MELD group (0-10), the LOS difference between 'ideal' donors (DRI < 1.0) and very high risk (DRI > 2.5) was 10.6 days which was associated with an estimated incremental cost of $47 986. For patients with MELD >35, the average LOS increased from 23.2 to 41.8 days when very high DRI donors were used, resulting in an estimated increase in cost of nearly $84 000. We conclude that the use of marginal liver grafts results in increased hospital costs independent of recipient risk factors.

Factors affecting graft survival after liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors is an increasingly common approach for expansion of the donor organ supply. However, transplantation with DCD livers results in inferior graft survival. In this study, we examined donor and recipient characteristics that are associated with poor allograft outcomes and present a set of criteria that permit allograft survival that is comparable to that of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts in both low- and high-risk recipients.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Liver Transplantation Registry between January 1996 and March 2006 was investigated. Adult DCD liver transplants (n = 874) were included.

RESULTS

A DCD risk index was developed using the statistically significant factors from a multivariate Cox model: history of previous transplantation, life support status at transplantation, donor age, donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). Favorable DCD donor criteria were donor age < or =45 years, DWIT < or =15 min, and CIT < or =10 hr. Four risk groups were developed based upon index scores that showed different graft survival. Graft survival of the favorable DCD group (84.9% at 1 year, 75.2% at 3 years, and 69.4% at 5 years) was comparable to that for DBD liver transplantation irrespective of recipient condition. Increasing donor age was more highly predictive of poor outcomes in DCD compared to DBD, especially in recipients in poor preoperative condition.

CONCLUSIONS

DCD livers from young donors with short DWIT and CIT should be given greater consideration in order to expand the number of available donor organs.

Utilization of extended donor criteria liver allograft: Is the elevated risk of failure independent of the model for end-stage liver disease score of the recipient?

BACKGROUND

The goal of this analysis was to determine if outcomes from the use of extended criteria donor (ECD) livers were dependent upon the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of the recipient.

METHODS

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database as of March 4, 2006 was used for the analysis. Data from 12,056 adult liver transplant (LTx) recipients between June 1, 2002 and June 30, 2005 was analyzed. The donor risk index (DRI) was calculated as previously reported. A DRI of > or =1.7 was classified as ECD. Relative risk (RR) estimates were derived from Cox regression models adjusted for DRI, recipient MELD, age, sex, ethnicity, diagnosis, and year of transplant.

RESULTS

Data from 2,873 grafts falling in the ECD category (23.8%) and their recipients were analyzed. Recipients with low MELD scores (<15) received the highest proportion of ECD livers (33%). ECD livers were associated with a significant increase in the RR of graft failure within each MELD category. However, this effect held within each of the three MELD categories.

CONCLUSION

The use of ECD grafts expands the organ pool at expense of increased RR of liver failure. Our analysis showed no significant interaction between DRI and MELD score of the recipient. The fact that there is no additional impact of ECD livers in recipients with high MELD scores suggests that this group of patients may benefit from this pool of grafts.

Selective use of older adults in right lobe living donor liver transplantation

Many centers are reluctant to use older donors (>44 years) for adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (RLDLT) due to concerns about possible increased morbidity in donors and poorer outcomes in recipients. Since 2000, 130 adult RLDLTs have been performed at our institution. Recipients were divided into those who received a right lobe graft from a donor </=age 44 (n = 89, 68%; median age 30) and those who received a liver graft from a donor age >44 (n = 41, 32%; mean age 52). The two donor and recipient populations had similar demographic and operative profiles. With a median follow-up of 29 months, the severity and number of complications in older donors were similar to those in younger donors. No living donor died. Older donor allografts had initial allograft dysfunction compared to younger donors. Complication rates were similar among recipients in both groups but there was a higher bile duct stricture rate with older donor grafts (27% vs. 12%; p = 0.04). One-year recipient graft survival was 86% for older donors and 85% for younger donors (p = 0.95). Early experience with the use of selected older adults (>44 years) for RLDLT is encouraging, but may be associated with a higher rate of biliary complications in the recipient.

Kidney and pancreas transplantation in the United States, 1996-2005

Kidney and pancreas transplantation in 2005 improved in quantity and outcome quality, despite the increasing average age of kidney graft recipients, with 56% aged 50 or older. Geography and ABO blood type contribute to the discrepancy in waiting time among the deceased donor (DD) candidates. Allocation policy changes are decreasing the median times to transplant for pediatric recipients. Overall, 6% more DD kidney transplants were performed in 2005 with slight increases in standard criteria donors (SCD) and expanded criteria donors (ECD). The largest increase (39%) was in donation after cardiac death (DCD) from non-ECD donors. These DCD, non-ECD kidneys had equivalent outcomes to SCD kidneys. 1-, 3- and 5-year unadjusted graft survival was 91%, 80% and 70% for non-ECD-DD transplants, 82%, 68% and 53% for ECD-DD grafts, and 95%, 88% and 80% for living donor kidney transplants. In 2005, 27% of patients were discharged without steroids compared to 3% in 1999. Acute rejection decreased to 11% in 2004. There was a slight increase in the number of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (895), with fewer pancreas after kidney transplants (343 from 419 in 2004), and a stable number of pancreas alone transplants (129). Pancreas underutilization appears to be an ongoing issue.

Nontransplantation of livers from deceased donors who are able to donate another solid organ: how often and why it happens

Deceased donor factors associated with poor graft outcome are well known, but how often these factors lead to livers left untransplanted is poorly defined. A nested, case-control study was conducted using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 1987 to 2005. Only those donating >/=1 solid organ were included. Primary outcome was livers not transplanted (LNT, cases) versus transplanted (LT, controls). Primary variables for multivariate analysis were donor age and obesity. Covariates included donation after cardiac death (DCD), cerebral vascular accident death, viral serologies, cancer, ALT and bilirubin. There were 23 373 (26%) LNT's from 91 362 donors who donated at least one organ. Percent LNT fell over time (1987-1990: 48%; 1991-1995: 29%; 1996-2000: 21%; 2000-2005: 16%; p < 0.01). Increased age (odds ratio: 4.2, 95% confidence interval 3.6-4.9, p < 0.01) and obesity (2.1, 1.9-2.3, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with LNT across all time periods. Other significant factors included DCD and elevated ALT. For 2001-2005, population attributable risk indicate that age >40, abnormal ALT and obesity account for 32.6%, 25.3% and 9.2% of untransplanted livers, respectively. Use of expanded criteria livers has pushed LNT lower in spite of an aging and heavier donor population. Nevertheless, age and obesity still account for a significant portion of untransplanted livers.

Allocation of nonstandard livers to transplant candidates with high MELD scores: Should this practice be continued?

MELD and PELD scores of 255 consecutive grafts were calculated (236 adult cases and 19 pediatric cases). No correction for the etiology of liver disease was performed. Retransplants were excluded. Three categories of patients were identified: low MELD (scores <12, n = 61); intermediate MELD (scores between 12-24, n = 159); high MELD (scores > or =25, n = 35). Grafts were categorized according to donor quality: standard livers (n = 199), vs nonstandard livers (n = 56). Nonstandard livers were identified by age > or =60, or at least by two of the following conditions: severe hemodynamic instability, ultrasound evidence of steatosis, natriemia > or =155 mEq/L, ICU stay >7 days, liver trauma, protracted anoxia as cause of brain death, transaminases levels x 4. In standard livers, the 12-month graft survival (GS) for low, intermediate, and high MELD classes were 88%, 74%, and 77%, respectively. In nonstandard livers, the 12-month GS for the low, intermediate, and high MELD classes were 84%, 55%, and 44%, respectively; differences between low MELD class and both intermediate and high MELD classes were significant (P < .05). Cox regression analysis of all cases identified the following parameters as independent predictors of GS: donor status; donor age; and recipient creatinine. The highest correlation with GS was found using donor age and recipient creatinine as covariates. In standard livers no variable was able to predict GS. In nonstandard livers the MELD-PELD score was the unique variable able to predict GS. We suggest avoiding the use of nonstandard livers for patients with high MELD scores.

Developing a prognostic model for 90-day mortality after liver transplantation based on pretransplant recipient factors

BACKGROUND

Current statistical prognostic models for mortality after liver transplantation do not have good discriminatory ability. Furthermore, the methodology used to develop these models is often flawed. The objective of this paper is to develop a prognostic model for 90-day mortality after liver transplantation based on pretransplant recipient factors, employing a rigorous model development method.

METHODS

We used data on 4,829 patient that were prospectively collected for the UK & Ireland Liver Transplant Audit. Switching regression was employed to impute missing values combined with a bootstrapping approach for variable selection.

RESULTS

In all, 452 patients (9.4%) died within 90 days of their transplantation. The final prognostic model was well calibrated and discriminated moderately well between patients who did and who did not die (c-statistic 0.65, 95% CI [0.63, 0.68]). Although discrimination was not excellent overall, the results showed that those patients with a "low" chance of dying within 90 days of their transplant and those with a "high" chance of dying could be differentiated from patients with a "intermediate" chance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model can provide transplant candidates with predictions of their early posttransplantation prospects before any donor information is known, which is essential information for patients with end-stage liver disease for whom liver transplantation is a treatment option.

Use of extended criteria livers decreases wait time for liver transplantation without adversely impacting posttransplant survival

INTRODUCTION

The use of extended criteria donors (ECDs) could minimize shortage of suitable donor livers for transplantation. In 3 years, the aggressive use of ECD livers has reduced the wait list at our center from 257 to 30 patients with a median wait time of 18 days without using living donors. This study compares the graft/patient survival from standard (SD) and ECD for our transplant population between 2001 and 2005.

METHODS

Records of all adult liver transplant recipients over 4 years were reviewed (n = 571). ECD criteria included: age >59 years, BMI >34.9, maximum AST/ALT >500, maximum bilirubin >2.0, peak serum sodium >170, HBV/HCV/HTLV reactive, donation after cardiac death, cold ischemia time >12 hours, ICU stay >5 days, 3 or more pressors simultaneously, extensive alcohol abuse, cancer history (nonskin), active meningitis/bacteremia, or significant donor liver trauma. Outcomes included graft and patient survival at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight percent of recipients (n = 388) received ECD livers. Primary factors accounting for ECD-liver status included: elevated liver function tests (20%), hypernatremia (12.6%), and extensive alcohol abuse (11.4%). Graft survival was (SD, ECD): 90-day 91%, 88%; 1-year 84%, 80%; 2-year 78%, 77%; patient survival was: 90-day 93%, 90%; 1-year 87%, 82%; 2-year 83%, 79%. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis failed to demonstrate an overall difference in graft or patient survival at any time point. Only donor age >60 years was associated with decreased graft and patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Liver grafts from ECD can be used to dramatically reduce wait list time with outcomes comparable to those for SD without resorting to living donor liver transplantation.

Organ donation and utilization, 1995-2004: entering the collaborative era

Continued progress in organ donation will help enable transplantation to alleviate the increasing incidence of end-stage organ disease. This article discusses the implementation and effect of the federally initiated Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative; it then reviews organ donation data, living and deceased, from 1995 to 2004. It is the first annual report of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to include national data following initiation of the collaborative in 2003. Prior to that, annual growth in deceased donation was 2%-4%; in 2004, after initiation of the collaborative, deceased donation increased 11%. Identification and dissemination of best practices for organ donation have emphasized new strategies for improved consent, including revised approaches to minority participation, timing of requests and team design. The number of organs recovered from donation after cardiac death (DCD) grew from 64 in 1995 to 391 in 2004. While efforts are ongoing to develop methodologies for identifying expanded criteria donors (ECD) for organs other than kidney, it is clear DCD and ECD raise questions regarding cost and recovery. The number of living donor organs increased from 3493 in 1995 to 7002 in 2004; data show trends toward more living unrelated donors and those providing non-directed donations.