DCD consensus and futility in liver transplantation

Disparities in the Use of Older Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Allografts in the United States Versus the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in the characteristics and posttransplant survival of patients who received donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts from donors aged >60 y.

METHODS

Data were collected from the UK Transplant Registry and the United Network for Organ Sharing databases. Cohorts were dichotomized into donor age subgroups (donor >60 y [D >60]; donor ≤60 y [D ≤60]). Study period: January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015.

RESULTS

1157 DCD LTs were performed in the United Kingdom versus 3394 in the United States. Only 13.8% of US DCD donors were aged >50 y, contrary to 44.3% in the United Kingdom. D >60 were 22.6% in the United Kingdom versus 2.4% in the United States. In the United Kingdom, 64.2% of D >60 clustered in 2 metropolitan centers. In the United States, there was marked inter-regional variation. A total of 78.3% of the US DCD allografts were used locally. One- and 5-y unadjusted DCD graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom versus the United States (87.3% versus 81.4%, and 78.0% versus 71.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). One- and 5-y D >60 graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom (87.3% versus 68.1%, and 77.9% versus 51.4%, United Kingdom versus United States, respectively; P < 0.001). In both groups, grafts from donors ≤30 y had the best survival. Survival was similar for donors aged 41 to 50 versus 51 to 60 in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the United Kingdom, older DCD LT utilization remained low in the United States, with worse D >60 survival. Nonetheless, present data indicate similar survivals for older donors aged ≤60, supporting an extension to the current US DCD age cutoff.

Temporal Trends in Utilization and Outcomes of DCD Livers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Historically, donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers were frequently discarded because of higher mortality and graft loss after liver transplantation (LT). However, the demand for LT continues to outstrip the supply of "acceptable" organs. Additionally, changes in the donor pool, organ allocation, and clinical management of donors and recipients, and improved clinical protocols might have altered post-DCD-LT outcomes.

METHODS

We studied 5975 recovered DCD livers using US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017, with a comparison group of 78 235 adult donation after brain death (DBD) livers recovered during the same time period. We quantified temporal trends in discard using adjusted multilevel logistic regression and temporal trends in post-LT mortality and graft loss for DCD LT recipients using adjusted Cox regression.

RESULTS

DCD livers were more likely to be discarded than DBD livers across the entire study period, and the relative likelihood of discard increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of discard DCD versus DBD 3.854.455.14 2005-2007, 5.225.876.59 2015-2017) despite improving outcomes after DCD LT. Mortality risk for DCD LTs decreased in each time period (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.720.840.97, aHR 2012-2014 0.480.580.70, aHR 2015-2017 0.340.430.55), as did risk of graft loss (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.690.810.94, aHR 2012-2014 0.450.550.67, aHR 2015-2017 0.360.450.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite dramatic improvements in outcomes of DCD LT recipients, DCD livers remain substantially more likely to be discarded than DBD livers, and this discrepancy has actually increased over time. DCD livers are underutilized and have the potential to expand the donor pool.

Advantages and Limitations of Clinical Scores for Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation

Background: Scoring systems have been proposed to select donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and recipients for liver transplantation (LT). We hypothesized that complex scoring systems derived in large datasets might not predict outcomes locally. Methods: Based on 1-year DCD-LT graft survival predictors in multivariate logistic regression models, we designed, validated, and compared a simple index using the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) cohort (n = 136) and a universal-comprehensive (UC)-DCD score using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) cohort (n = 5,792) to previously published DCD scoring systems. Results: The total warm ischemia time (WIT)-index included donor WIT (dWIT) and hepatectomy time (dHep). The UC-DCD score included dWIT, dHep, recipient on mechanical ventilation, transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt, cause of liver disease, model for end-stage liver disease, body mass index, donor/recipient age, and cold ischemia time. In the UNOS cohort, the UC-score outperformed all previously published scores in predicting DCD-LT graft survival (AUC: 0.635 vs. ≤0.562). In the UCSF cohort, the total WIT index successfully stratified survival and biliary complications, whereas other scores did not. Conclusion: DCD risk scores generated in large cohorts provide general guidance for safe recipient/donor selection, but they must be tailored based on non-/partially-modifiable local circumstances to expand DCD utilization.

Using Infodemiology Metrics to Assess Public Interest in Liver Transplantation: Google Trends Analysis

Background

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease. Less than 10% of global transplantation needs are met worldwide, and the need for LT is still increasing. The death rates on the waiting list remain too high.

Objective

It is, therefore, critical to raise awareness among the public and health care providers and in turn increasingly acquire donors.

Methods

We performed a Google Trends search using the search terms liver transplantation and liver transplant on October 15, 2020. On the basis of the resulting monthly data, the annual average Google Trends indices were calculated for the years 2004 to 2018. We not only investigated the trend worldwide but also used data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), Spain, and Eurotransplant. Using pairwise Spearman correlations, Google Trends indices were examined over time and compared with the total number of liver transplants retrieved from the respective official websites of UNOS, the Organización Nacional de Trasplantes, and Eurotransplant.

Results

From 2004 to 2018, there was a significant decrease in the worldwide Google Trends index from 78.2 in 2004 to 20.5 in 2018 (–71.2%). This trend was more evident in UNOS than in the Eurotransplant group. In the same period, the number of transplanted livers increased worldwide. The waiting list mortality rate was 31% for Eurotransplant and 29% for UNOS. However, in Spain, where there are excellent awareness programs, the Google Trends index remained stable over the years with comparable, increasing LT numbers but a significantly lower waiting list mortality (15%).

Conclusions

Public awareness in LT has decreased significantly over the past two decades. Therefore, novel awareness programs should be initialized.

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.

Retrieval Practice or Overall Donor and Recipient Risk: What Impacts on Outcomes After Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation in the United Kingdom?

Parameters of retrieval surgery are meticulously documented in the United Kingdom, where up to 40% of livers are donation after circulatory death (DCD) donations. This retrospective analysis focuses on outcomes after transplantation of DCD livers, retrieved by different UK centers between 2011 and 2016. Donor and recipient risk factors and the donor retrieval technique were assessed. A total of 236 DCD livers from 9 retrieval centers with a median UK DCD risk score of 5 (low risk) to 7 points (high risk) were compared. The majority used University of Wisconsin solution for aortic flush with a median hepatectomy time of 27-44 minutes. The overall liver injury rate appeared relatively high (27.1%) with an observed tendency toward more retrieval injuries from centers performing a quicker hepatectomy. Among all included risk factors, the UK DCD risk score remained the best predictor for overall graft loss in the multivariate analysis (P < 0.001). In high-risk and futile donor-recipient combinations, the occurrence of liver retrieval injuries had negative impact on graft survival (P = 0.023). Expectedly, more ischemic cholangiopathies (P = 0.003) were found in livers transplanted with a higher cumulative donor-recipient risk. Although more biliary complications with subsequent graft loss were found in high-risk donor-recipient combinations, the impact of the standardized national retrieval practice on outcomes after DCD liver transplantation was minimal.