Impact of donor age in liver transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors: A decade of experience at Cleveland Clinic

Older liver grafts from donation after circulatory death are associated with impaired survival and higher incidence of biliary non-anastomotic stricture

BACKGROUND

Grafts from older donors after circulatory death were associated with inferior outcome in liver transplants in the past. But it has seemed to remain controversial in the last decade, as a result of modified clinical protocols, selected recipients, and advanced technology of organ perfusion and preservation. The present study aimed to examine the impact of older donor age on complications and survival of liver transplant using grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD).

METHODS

A total of 944 patients who received DCD liver transplantation from 2015 to 2020 were included and divided into two groups: using graft from older donor (aged ≥ 65 years, n = 87) and younger donor (age < 65 years, n = 857). Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to eliminate selection bias.

RESULTS

A progressively increased proportion of liver transplants with grafts from older donors was observed from 1.68% to 15.44% during the study period. The well-balanced older donor (n = 79) and younger donor (n = 79) were 1:1 matched. There were significantly more episodes of biliary non-anastomotic stricture (NAS) in the older donor group than the younger donor group [15/79 (19.0%) vs. 6/79 (7.6%); P = 0.017]. The difference did not reach statistical significance regarding early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and primary non-function (PNF). Older livers had a trend toward inferior 1-, 2-, 3-year graft and overall survival compared with younger livers, but these differences were not statistically significant (63.1%, 57.6%, 57.6% vs. 76.9%, 70.2%, 67.7%, P = 0.112; 64.4%, 58.6%, 58.6% vs. 76.9%, 72.2%, 72.2%, P = 0.064). The only risk factor for poor survival was ABO incompatible transplant (P = 0.008) in the older donor group. In the subgroup of ABO incompatible cases, it demonstrated a significant difference in the rate of NAS between the older donor group and the younger donor group [6/8 (75.0%) vs. 3/14 (21.4%); P = 0.014].

CONCLUSIONS

Transplants with grafts from older donors (aged ≥ 65 years) after circulatory death are more frequently associated with inferior outcome compared to those from younger donors. Older grafts from DCD are more likely to develop NAS, especially in ABO incompatible cases.

Individualized Biliary Reconstruction Techniques in Liver Transplantation: Five Years' Experience of a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

To summarize the experience of individualized biliary reconstruction techniques in deceased donor liver transplantation and explore potential risk factors for biliary stricture.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected medical records of 489 patients undergoing deceased donor liver transplantation at our center between January 2016 and August 2020. According to anatomical and pathological conditions of donor and recipient biliary ducts, patients' biliary reconstruction methods were divided into six types. We summarized the experience of six different reconstruction methods and analyzed the biliary complications' rate and risk factors after liver transplantation.

RESULTS

Among 489 cases of biliary reconstruction methods during liver transplantation, there were 206 cases of type I, 98 cases of type II, 96 cases of type III, 39 cases of type IV, 34 cases of type V, and 16 cases of type VI. Biliary tract anastomotic complications occurred in 41 cases (8.4%), including 35 cases with biliary stricture (7.2%), 9 cases with biliary leakage (1.8%), 19 cases with biliary stones (3.9%), 1 case with biliary bleeding (0.2%), and 2 cases with biliary infection (0.4%). One of 41 patients died of biliary tract bleeding and one died of biliary infection. Thirty-six patients significantly improved after treatment, and 3 patients received secondary transplantation. Compared with patients without biliary stricture, a higher warm ischemic time was observed in patients with non-anastomotic stricture and more leakage of bile in patients with an anastomotic stricture.

CONCLUSION

The individualized biliary reconstruction methods are safe and feasible to decrease perioperative anastomotic biliary complications. Biliary leakage may contribute to anastomotic biliary stricture and cold ischemia time to non-anastomotic biliary stricture.

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) as a Source of Liver Grafts: Honouring the Ultimate Gift

OBJECTIVE

To report the clinical outcomes of liver transplants from donors after medical assistance in dying (MAiD) versus donors after cardiac death (DCD) and deceased brain death (DBD).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

In North America, the number of patients needing liver transplants exceeds the number of available donors. In 2016, MAiD was legalized in Canada.

METHODS

All patients undergoing deceased donor liver transplantation at Toronto General Hospital between 2016 and 2021 were included in the study. Recipient perioperative and postoperative variables and donor physiological variables were compared among 3 groups.

RESULTS

Eight hundred seven patients underwent deceased donor liver transplantation during the study period, including DBD (n=719; 89%), DCD (n=77; 9.5%), and MAiD (n=11; 1.4%). The overall incidence of biliary complications was 6.9% (n=56), the most common being strictures (n=55;6.8%), highest among the MAiD recipients [5.8% (DBD) vs. 14.2% (DCD) vs. 18.2% (MAiD); P =0.008]. There was no significant difference in 1 year (98.4% vs. 96.4% vs. 100%) and 3-year (89.3% vs. 88.7% vs. 100%) ( P =0.56) patient survival among the 3 groups. The 1- and 3- year graft survival rates were comparable (96.2% vs. 95.2% vs. 100% and 92.5% vs. 91% vs. 100%; P =0.37).

CONCLUSION

With expected physiological hemodynamic challenges among MAiD and DCD compared with DBD donors, a higher rate of biliary complications was observed in MAiD donors, with no significant difference noted in short-and long-term graft outcomes among the 3 groups. While ethical challenges persist, good initial results suggest that MAiD donors can be safely used in liver transplantation, with results comparable with other established forms of donation.

Changing liver utilization and discard rates in clinical transplantation in the ex-vivo machine preservation era

Liver transplantation is a well-established treatment for many with end-stage liver disease. Unfortunately, the increasing organ demand has surpassed the donor supply, and approximately 30% of patients die while waiting for a suitable liver. Clinicians are often forced to consider livers of inferior quality to increase organ donation rates, but ultimately, many of those organs end up being discarded. Extensive testing in experimental animals and humans has shown that ex-vivo machine preservation allows for a more objective characterization of the graft outside the body, with particular benefit for suboptimal organs. This review focuses on the history of the implementation of ex-vivo liver machine preservation and how its enactment may modify our current concept of organ acceptability. We provide a brief overview of the major drivers of organ discard (age, ischemia time, steatosis, etc.) and how this technology may ultimately revert such a trend. We also discuss future directions for this technology, including the identification of new markers of injury and repair and the opportunity for other ex-vivo regenerative therapies. Finally, we discuss the value of this technology, considering current and future donor characteristics in the North American population that may result in a significant organ discard.

Lost potential and missed opportunities for DCD liver transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Donation after cardiac death(DCD) has been proposed as an avenue to expand the liver donor pool.

METHODS

We examined factors associated with nonrecovery of DCD livers using UNOS data from 2015 to 2019.

RESULTS

There 265 non-recovered potential(NRP) DCD livers. Blood type AB (7.8% vs. 1.1%) and B (16.9% vs. 9.8%) were more frequent in the NRP versus actual donors (p < 0.001). The median driving time between donor hospital and transplant center was similar for NRP and actual donors (30.1 min vs. 30.0 min; p = 0.689), as was the percentage located within a transplant hospital (20.8% vs. 20.9%; p = 0.984).The donation service area(DSA) of a donor hospital explained 27.9% (p = 0.001) of the variability in whether a DCD liver was recovered.

CONCLUSION

A number of potentially high quality DCD donor livers go unrecovered each year, which may be partially explained by donor blood type and variation in regional and DSA level practice patterns.

Liver Transplant Recipient Characteristics Associated With Worse Post-Transplant Outcomes in Using Elderly Donors

Advanced age of liver donor is a risk factor for graft loss after transplant. We sought to identify recipient characteristics associated with negative post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes in the context of elderly donors. Using 2014–2019 OPTN/UNOS data, LT recipients were classified by donor age: ≥70, 40–69, and <40 years. Recipient risk factors for one-year graft loss were identified and created a risk stratification system and validated it using 2020 OPTN/UNOS data set. At transplant, significant recipient risk factors for one-year graft loss were: previous liver transplant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 4.37, 95%CI 1.98–9.65); mechanical ventilation (aHR 4.28, 95%CI 1.95–9.43); portal thrombus (aHR 1.87, 95%CI 1.26–2.77); serum sodium <125 mEq/L (aHR 2.88, 95%CI 1.34–6.20); and Karnofsky score 10–30% (aHR 2.03, 95%CI 1.13–3.65), 40–60% (aHR 1.65, 95%CI 1.08–2.51). Using those risk factors and multiplying HRs, recipients were divided into low-risk (n = 931) and high-risk (n = 294). Adjusted risk of one-year graft loss in the low-risk recipient group was similar to that of patients with younger donors; results were consistent using validation dataset. Our results show that a system of careful recipient selection can reduce the risks of graft loss associated with older donor age.

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.

Early Allograft Dysfunction and Complications in DCD Liver Transplantation: Expert Consensus Statements From the International Liver Transplantation Society

Livers for transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors are relatively more prone to early and ongoing alterations in graft function that might ultimately lead to graft loss and even patient death. In consideration of this fact, this working group of the International Liver Transplantation Society has performed a critical evaluation of the medical literature to create a set of statements regarding the assessment of early allograft function/dysfunction and complications arising in the setting of donation after circulatory death liver transplantation.

Comparable graft survival is achievable with the usage of donation after circulatory death liver grafts from donors at or above 70 years of age: A long-term UK national analysis

The aim of the study was to assess the UK donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplant experience from donors ≥70 years. Nationwide UK DCD retrospective analysis was conducted between 2001 and 2015 (n = 1163). Recipients were divided into group 1 vs. group 2 (donors 70≥ vs. <70 years, respectively). group 1 (n = 69, 5.9%) recipients were older (median 59 vs. 55 years, p = .001) and had longer waitlist time (128 vs. 84 days; p = .039). 94.2% of group 1 clustered in London and Birmingham, where the two busiest centers are located. group 1 allografts had higher UKDRI and UK DCD Risk Scores but similar WIT and CIT and were more likely to have been imported. Both groups had similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival (group 1, 90%, 81.4%, and 74% vs. group 2, 88.6%, 81.4%, and 78.6%, respectively; p = .54). Both groups had similar ICU stay length (p = .22), 3-month hepatic artery thrombosis rates (4.4% vs 4.0%; p = .9), and 12-month readmission rates for all biliary complications (20.3% vs 25.7%; p = .32). This study demonstrates that acceptable outcomes are achievable using older grafts in a highly selected cohort at experienced centers. Advanced age should not be an absolute contraindication to utilizing a DCD graft from donors aged ≥70 years.

Biliary complications in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: the Australian National Liver Transplantation Unit's experience

BACKGROUND

Biliary complications are the most common complications of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation and the international experience with DCD transplants suggests increased rates of biliary complications compared to donation after brain death transplants. Therefore, it is important to understand factors that are associated with the development of biliary complications within the Australian DCD context in order to inform future practice. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of biliary complications after DCD liver transplantation at the Australian National Liver Transplantation Unit and identify factors associated with this outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all adult DCD liver transplants at the Australian National Liver Transplantation Unit from 2007 to 2015 was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of biliary complications and was censored on 31 December 2016. Recipients were then stratified into groups based on the development of biliary complications and risk factor analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Biliary complications occurred in 35% of DCD transplants, including seven anastomotic strictures and 10 non-anastomotic strictures. Higher donor risk index scores (P = 0.03), post-transplant portal vein complications (P = 0.042) and peak gamma-glutamyl transferase levels within 7 days post-transplant (P = 0.047) were associated with biliary complications.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study demonstrate that biliary complications remain common in DCD liver recipients. Recipients who developed a biliary complication tended to have higher donor risk index, elevated peak gamma-glutamyl transferase levels within 7 days post-transplant or a portal vein complication. The presence of any of these factors should prompt close monitoring for post-transplant biliary complications.

Liver graft from donation after circulatory death donor: Real practice to improve graft viability

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is an increasing source of liver grafts for transplantation, yet outcomes have been inferior compared to donation after brain death liver transplantation. These worse outcomes are mainly due to the severe graft injury resulting from mandatory warm ischemia during DCD organ recovery. New evidence, however, indicates that improved donor selection and surgical techniques can decrease the risk of graft failure and ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Under current best practices, DCD organs are retrieved with the super-rapid technique, optimizing timing and protecting the liver graft from detrimental warm ischemia. Graft viability is influenced by both the quantity and quality of warm ischemia, which is unique to each donor and causes various degrees of pathophysiologic consequences. Evidence also shows that the choice of preservation solution and premortem heparin administration influences graft viability. Additionally, although the precise mechanism of IC remains unknown, stasis of blood during donor warm ischemia may cause the formation of microthrombi in the peribiliary vascular plexus and ischemia of the bile duct. Importantly, thrombolytic protocols show a possible preventive modality for IC. Finally, while ex vivo machine perfusion technology has gained an interest in DCD liver transplantation, further studies are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of this evolving field to improve graft quality and transplant outcomes.

Can we reduce ischemic cholangiopathy rates in donation after cardiac death liver transplantation after 10 years of practice? Canadian single-centre experience

Background

Outcomes in liver transplantation with organs obtained via donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been suboptimal compared to donation after brain death, attributed mainly to the high incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). We evaluated the effect of a 10-year learning curve on IC rates among DCD liver graft recipients at a single centre.

Methods

We analyzed all DCD liver transplantation procedures from July 2006 to July 2016. Patients were grouped into early (July 2006 to June 2011) and late (July 2011 to July 2016) eras. Those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Primary outcomes were IC incidence and IC-free survival rate.

Results

Among the 73 DCD liver transplantation procedures performed, 70 recipients fulfilled the selection criteria, 32 in the early era and 38 in the late era. Biliary complications were diagnosed in 19 recipients (27%). Ischemic cholangiopathy was observed in 8 patients (25%) in the early era and 1 patient (3%) in the late era (p = 0.005). The IC-free survival rate was higher in the late era than the early era (98% v. 79%, p = 0.01). The warm ischemia time (27 v. 24 min, p = 0.049) and functional warm ischemia time (21 v. 17 min, p = 0.002) were significantly lower in the late era than the early era.

Conclusion

We found a significant reduction in IC rates and improvement in ICfree survival among DCD liver transplantation recipients after a learning curve period that was marked by more judicious donor selection with shorter procurement times.

Can hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) rescue futile DCD liver grafts?

BACKGROUND

The new UK-DCD-Risk-Score has been recently developed to predict graft loss in DCD liver transplantation. Donor-recipient combinations with a cumulative risk of >10 points were classified as futile and achieved an impaired one-year graft survival of <40%. The aim of this study was to show, if hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) can rescue such extended DCD livers and improve outcomes.

METHODS

"Futile"-classified donor-recipient combinations were selected from our HOPE-treated human DCD liver cohort (01/2012-5/2017), with a minimum follow-up of one year. Main risk factors, which contribute to the classification "futile" include: elderly donors>60years, prolonged functional donor warm ischemia time (fDWIT > 30min), long cold ischemia time>6hrs, donor BMI>25 kg/m², advanced recipient age (>60years), MELD-score>25points and retransplantation status. Endpoints included all outcome measures during and after DCD LT.

RESULTS

Twenty-one donor-recipient combinations were classified futile (median UK-DCD-Risk-Score:11 points). The median donor age and fDWIT were 62 years and 36 min, respectively. After cold storage, livers underwent routine HOPE-treatment for 120 min. All grafts showed immediate function. One-year and 5-year tumor death censored graft survival was 86%.

CONCLUSION

HOPE-treatment achieved excellent outcomes, despite high-risk donor and recipient combinations. Such easy, endischemic perfusion approach may open the door for an increased utilization of futile DCD livers in other countries.

Outcomes of Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Grafts From Donors 50 Years or Older: A Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

As the population in the United States continues to age, an increase in the number of potential donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors with advanced chronological age can be expected. The aim of this study was to analyze a multi-institutional experience in liver transplantation using DCD donors 50 years or older.

METHODS

All DCD liver transplant (LT) performed at Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Clinic Rochester, and Mayo Clinic Arizona from 2002 to 2016 were included. Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 2 groups: those with donors 50 years or older (N = 155) and those with donors younger than 50 years(N = 316).

RESULTS

Graft survival was similar between the DCD donors 50 years or older group and DCD donors younger than 50 group(P = 0.99). Graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 87.0%, 75.6%, and 71.8% in the DCD donors 50 years or older group and 85.8%, 76.0%, and 70.4% in the DCD donors younger than 50 group.The rate of total biliary complications (32.3% vs 23.7%; P = 0.049) and of anastomotic strictures (16.1% vs 8.2%; P = 0.01) were higher in the DCD donors 50 years or older compared with the DCD donors younger than 50 group. No statistical significant difference in the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy (11.6% vs 7.6%; P = 0.15) was seen between the 2 groups. Due to homogeneous practice patterns at the involved institutions, additional Cox regression analysis using national data obtained from Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was used to evaluate predictors of graft failure in DCD donors 50 years or older. Significant predictors of graft failure included: a calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 30 or higher (P < 0.001), mechanical ventilation at the time of transplant (P < 0.001), medical condition (in intensive care unit) (P = 0.002), and cold ischemia time (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that acceptable graft and patient survival can be achieved with the usage of DCD LT with donors 50 years or older. Optimizing recipient selection criteria and minimizing cold ischemia time may further improve outcomes.

Can we reduce ischemic cholangiopathy rates in donation after cardiac death liver transplantation after 10 years of practice? Canadian single-centre experience

Background

Outcomes in liver transplantation with organs obtained via donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been suboptimal compared to donation after brain death, attributed mainly to the high incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). We evaluated the effect of a 10-year learning curve on IC rates among DCD liver graft recipients at a single centre.

Methods

We analyzed all DCD liver transplantation procedures from July 2006 to July 2016. Patients were grouped into early (July 2006 to June 2011) and late (July 2011 to July 2016) eras. Those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Primary outcomes were IC incidence and IC-free survival rate.

Results

Among the 73 DCD liver transplantation procedures performed, 70 recipients fulfilled the selection criteria, 32 in the early era and 38 in the late era. Biliary complications were diagnosed in 19 recipients (27%). Ischemic cholangiopathy was observed in 8 patients (25%) in the early era and 1 patient (3%) in the late era (p = 0.005). The IC-free survival rate was higher in the late era than the early era (98% v. 79%, p = 0.01). The warm ischemia time (27 v. 24 min, p = 0.049) and functional warm ischemia time (21 v. 17 min, p = 0.002) were significantly lower in the late era than the early era.

Conclusion

We found a significant reduction in IC rates and improvement in ICfree survival among DCD liver transplantation recipients after a learning curve period that was marked by more judicious donor selection with shorter procurement times.

Vascular and Biliary Complications Following Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess biliary and vascular complications after liver transplantations (LTs) sourced from deceased donors.

METHODS

This study reviewed potentially relevant English-language articles gathered from PubMed and Medline published from 2012 to 2017. One additional study was carried out using our institution's database for articles published from 2013 to 2017. Biliary and vascular complications from adult patients receiving their first deceased-donor LT were included. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Ten studies met our inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity in donation after cardiac death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) recipients was observed and minimized after pooling a subgroup analysis. This latter analysis focused on biliary stricture, biliary leaks and stones, and vascular thrombosis and stenosis. Meta-analyses showed that patients receiving DCD organs have a greatly increased risk of biliary complications compared to those receiving DBD organs, particularly the following: biliary leaks and stones (odds ratio [OR] = 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.34); and biliary stricture (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.21-2.06). DCD grafts tended to be but were not significantly associated with DBD regarding vascular thrombosis (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.05-2.50), and the risk of vascular stenosis in DCD grafts was not statistically significant (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, .70-2.25).

CONCLUSION

DCD was associated with an increased risk of biliary complications after LT, tended to indicate an increased risk of vascular thrombosis versus, and was not associated with an increased risk of vascular stenosis compared to DBD. There was no significant difference between the grafts.

Expanding the donor pool: Donation after circulatory death and living liver donation do not compromise the results of liver transplantation

Because of the shortfall between the number of patients listed for liver transplantation (LT) and the available grafts, strategies to expand the donor pool have been developed. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) and living donor (LD) grafts are not universally used because of the concerns of graft failure, biliary complications, and donor risks. In order to overcome the barriers for the implementation of using all 3 types of grafts, we compared outcomes after LT of DCD, LD, and donation after brain death (DBD) grafts. Patients who received a LD, DCD, or DBD liver graft at the University of Toronto were included. Between January 2009 through April 2017, 1054 patients received a LT at our center. Of these, 77 patients received a DCD graft (DCD group); 271 received a LD graft (LD group); and 706 received a DBD graft (DBD group). Overall biliary complications were higher in the LD group (11.8%) compared with the DCD group (5.2%) and the DBD group (4.8%; P < 0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates were similar between the groups with 88.3%, 83.2%, and 69.2% in the DCD group versus 92.6%, 85.4%, and 84.7% in the LD group versus 90.2%, 84.2%, and 79.9% in the DBD group (P = 0.24). Furthermore, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival was comparable, with 92.2%, 85.4%, and 71.6% in the DCD group versus 95.2%, 88.8%, and 88.8% in the LD group versus 93.1%, 87.5%, and 83% in the DBD group (P = 0.14). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the type of graft did not impact graft survival. In conclusion, DCD, LD, and DBD grafts have similar longterm graft survival rates. Increasing the use of LD and DCD grafts may improve access to LT without affecting graft survival rates. Liver Transplantation 24 779-789 2018 AASLD.

Impact of donor age in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: Is the cutoff "60" still of relevance?

Advanced donor age has been identified as a risk factor when combined with donor warm ischemia time (WIT), eg, in donation after circulatory death (DCD). In several countries, DCD livers older than 60 years are not considered suitable due to concerns related to poor graft function and development of ischemic cholangiopathy. In this study, we evaluate outcomes after DCD liver transplantation using grafts from donors older than 60 years. We analyzed outcomes after DCD liver transplantation (n = 315), comparing donors > 60 years (n = 93) and donors ≤ 60 years (n = 222) from our center between 2005 and 2015. End points included graft function and complications and patient and graft survival. Multivariate risk analysis was performed to define further key factors that predicted inferior outcome. Donor age at the cutoff 60 years failed to stratify patient and graft survival. The rate of vascular, biliary, and overall complications was comparably low in both cohorts, and the median comprehensive complication index was 42.7 points, independent from the donor age. Second, donor body mass index (BMI) above a threshold of 25 kg/m² significantly impacted on graft and patient survival at any donor age, whereas donor WIT and cold ischemia times were not predictive for graft loss. In conclusion, older DCD donors can be successfully used for liver transplantation with good longterm outcomes when further risk factors are limited. Additional risk is transmitted by an increased donor BMI regardless of donor age. Liver Transplantation 24 352-362 2018 AASLD.

The UK DCD Risk Score: A new proposal to define futility in donation-after-circulatory-death liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Primary non-function and ischaemic cholangiopathy are the most feared complications following donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD) liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to design a new score on risk assessment in liver-transplantation DCD based on donor-and-recipient parameters.

METHODS

Using the UK national DCD database, a risk analysis was performed in adult recipients of DCD liver grafts in the UK between 2000 and 2015 (n = 1,153). A new risk score was calculated (UK DCD Risk Score) on the basis of a regression analysis. This is validated using the United Network for Organ Sharing database (n = 1,617) and our own DCD liver-transplant database (n = 315). Finally, the new score was compared with two other available prediction systems: the DCD risk scores from the University of California, Los Angeles and King's College Hospital, London.

RESULTS

The following seven strongest predictors of DCD graft survival were identified: functional donor warm ischaemia, cold ischaemia, recipient model for end-stage liver disease, recipient age, donor age, previous orthotopic liver transplantation, and donor body mass index. A combination of these risk factors (UK DCD risk model) stratified the best recipients in terms of graft survival in the entire UK DCD database, as well as in the United Network for Organ Sharing and in our own DCD population. Importantly, the UK DCD Risk Score significantly predicted graft loss caused by primary non-function or ischaemic cholangiopathy in the futile group (>10 score points). The new prediction model demonstrated a better C statistic of 0.79 compared to the two other available systems (0.71 and 0.64, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The UK DCD Risk Score is a reliable tool to detect high-risk and futile combinations of donor-and-recipient factors in DCD liver transplantation. It is simple to use and offers a great potential for making better decisions on which DCD graft should be rejected or may benefit from functional assessment and further optimization by machine perfusion.

LAY SUMMARY

In this study, we provide a new prediction model for graft loss in donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD) liver transplantation. Based on UK national data, the new UK DCD Risk Score involves the following seven clinically relevant risk factors: donor age, donor body mass index, functional donor warm ischaemia, cold storage, recipient age, recipient laboratory model for end-stage liver disease, and retransplantation. Three risk classes were defined: low risk (0-5 points), high risk (6-10 points), and futile (>10 points). This new model stratified best in terms of graft survival compared to other available models. Futile combinations (>10 points) achieved an only very limited 1- and 5-year graft survival of 37% and less than 20%, respectively. In contrast, an excellent graft survival has been shown in low-risk combinations (≤5 points). The new model is easy to calculate at the time of liver acceptance. It may help to decide which risk combination will benefit from additional graft treatment, or which DCD liver should be declined for a certain recipient.

Developing a donation after cardiac death risk index for adult and pediatric liver transplantation

AIM

To identify objective predictive factors for donor after cardiac death (DCD) graft loss and using those factors, develop a donor recipient stratification risk predictive model that could be used to calculate a DCD risk index (DCD-RI) to help in prospective decision making on organ use.

METHODS

The model included objective data from a single institute DCD database (2005-2013, n = 261). Univariate survival analysis was followed by adjusted Cox-regressional hazard model. Covariates selected via univariate regression were added to the model via forward selection, significance level P = 0.3. The warm ischemic threshold was clinically set at 30 min. Points were given to each predictor in proportion to their hazard ratio. Using this model, the DCD-RI was calculated. The cohort was stratified to predict graft loss risk and respective graft survival calculated.

RESULTS

DCD graft survival predictors were primary indication for transplant (P = 0.066), retransplantation (P = 0.176), MELD > 25 (P = 0.05), cold ischemia > 10 h (P = 0.292) and donor hepatectomy time > 60 min (P = 0.028). According to the calculated DCD-RI score three risk classes could be defined of low (DCD-RI < 1), standard (DCD-RI 2-4) and high risk (DCD-RI > 5) with a 5 years graft survival of 86%, 78% and 34%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The DCD-RI score independently predicted graft loss (P < 0.001) and the DCD-RI class predicted graft survival (P < 0.001).

Diagnostic Accuracy of Laboratory Tests and Diagnostic Imaging in Detecting Biliary Strictures After Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is often required to diagnose post-liver transplant (LT) biliary strictures. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive laboratory and imaging tests in detecting post-LT biliary strictures.

METHODS

Adult LT recipients who underwent ERCP between 2008 and 2015 were evaluated. Biliary strictures were diagnosed after blinded review of cholangiograms by three interventional endoscopists. The accuracy of liver enzymes, ultrasound, and MRI was determined using cholangiography as the reference standard. To evaluate the accuracy of change in liver enzymes, the difference between baseline and liver enzymes prior to ERCP (Δlab) was utilized.

RESULTS

Biliary strictures were present on cholangiogram in 48 (58%) of 82 LT recipients meeting inclusion criteria. Baseline liver enzyme values did not differ significantly between patients with and without strictures. The optimal cutoffs for ΔALT, ΔAST, Δbilirubin, and Δalkaline phosphatase (AP) were determined to be 174 IU/L, 75 IU/L, 3.1 mg/dL, and 225 IU/L, respectively. ΔALT had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity 43%, and negative predictive value 100%. ΔAP had the highest specificity (53%) but modest sensitivity (69%) with a positive predictive value of 67%. Ultrasound had sensitivity of 29% and specificity of 69%, while MRI had sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 56%.

DISCUSSION

The diagnostic accuracy of liver enzymes and imaging modalities is modest in detecting post-LT biliary strictures and cannot be used solely to identify patients needing further workup.

Role of donor hemodynamic trajectory in determining graft survival in liver transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors show heterogeneous hemodynamic trajectories following withdrawal of life support. Impact of hemodynamics in DCD liver transplant is unclear, and objective measures of graft viability would ease transplant surgeon decision making and inform safe expansion of the donor organ pool. This retrospective study tested whether hemodynamic trajectories were associated with transplant outcomes in DCD liver transplantation (n = 87). Using longitudinal clustering statistical techniques, we phenotyped DCD donors based on hemodynamic trajectory for both mean arterial pressure (MAP) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂ ) following withdrawal of life support. Donors were categorized into 3 clusters: those who gradually decline after withdrawal of life support (cluster 1), those who maintain stable hemodynamics followed by rapid decline (cluster 2), and those who decline rapidly (cluster 3). Clustering outputs were used to compare characteristics and transplant outcomes. Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed hepatocellular carcinoma (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.53; P = 0.047), cold ischemia time (HR = 1.50 per hour; P = 0.027), and MAP cluster 1 were associated with increased risk of graft loss (HR = 3.13; P = 0.021), but not SpO₂ cluster (P = 0.172) or donor warm ischemia time (DWIT; P = 0.154). Despite longer DWIT, MAP and SpO₂ clusters 2 showed similar graft survival to MAP and SpO₂ clusters 3, respectively. In conclusion, despite heterogeneity in hemodynamic trajectories, DCD donors can be categorized into 3 clinically meaningful subgroups that help predict graft prognosis. Further studies should confirm the utility of liver grafts from cluster 2. Liver Transplantation 22 1469-1481 2016 AASLD.

Liver transplant outcomes using ideal donation after circulatory death livers are superior to using older donation after brain death donor livers

Multiple reports have demonstrated that liver transplantation following donation after circulatory death (DCD) is associated with poorer outcomes when compared with liver transplantation from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. We hypothesized that carefully selected, underutilized DCD livers recovered from younger donors have excellent outcomes. We performed a retrospective study of the United Network for Organ Sharing database to determine graft survivals for patients who received liver transplants from DBD donors of age ≥ 60 years, DBD donors < 60 years, and DCD donors < 50 years of age. Between January 2002 and December 2014, 52,271 liver transplants were performed in the United States. Of these, 41,181 (78.8%) underwent transplantation with livers from DBD donors of age < 60 years, 8905 (17.0%) from DBD donors ≥ 60 years old, and 2195 (4.2%) livers from DCD donors < 50 years of age. DCD livers of age < 50 years with < 6 hours of cold ischemia time (CIT) had superior graft survival when compared with DBD livers ≥ age 60 years (P < 0.001). In 2014, there were 133 discarded DCD livers; of these, 111 (83.4%) were from donors < age 50 years old. Young DCD donor livers (age < 50 years old) with short CITs yield results better than that seen with DBD livers > 60 years old. Careful donor organ and recipient selection can lead to excellent results, despite previous reports suggesting otherwise. Increased acceptance of these DCD livers would lead to shorter wait list times and increased national liver transplant rates. Liver Transplantation 22 1197-1204 2016 AASLD.

Longterm results of liver transplantation from donation after circulatory death

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) may imply a risk for decreased graft survival, caused by posttransplantation complications such as primary nonfunction or ischemic-type biliary lesions. However, similar survival rates for DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) LT have been reported. The objective of this study is to determine the longterm outcome of DCD LT in the Eurotransplant region corrected for the Eurotransplant donor risk index (ET-DRI). Transplants performed in Belgium and the Netherlands (January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007) in adult recipients were included. Graft failure was defined as either the date of recipient death or retransplantation whichever occurred first (death-uncensored graft survival). Mean follow-up was 7.2 years. In total, 126 DCD and 1264 DBD LTs were performed. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed different graft survival for DBD and DCD at 1 year (77.7% versus 74.8%, respectively; P = 0.71), 5 years (65.6% versus 54.4%, respectively; P = 0.02), and 10 years (47.3% versus 44.2%, respectively; P = 0.55; log-rank P = 0.038). Although there was an overall significant difference, the survival curves almost reach each other after 10 years, which is most likely caused by other risk factors being less in DCD livers. Patient survival was not significantly different (P = 0.59). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed a hazard ratio of 1.7 (P < 0.001) for DCD (corrected for ET-DRI and recipient factors). First warm ischemia time (WIT), which is the time from the end of circulation until aortic cold perfusion, over 25 minutes was associated with a lower graft survival in univariate analysis of all DCD transplants (P = 0.002). In conclusion, DCD LT has an increased risk for diminished graft survival compared to DBD. There was no significant difference in patient survival. DCD allografts with a first WIT > 25 minutes have an increased risk for a decrease in graft survival. Liver Transplantation 22 1107-1114 2016 AASLD.