Liver transplantation using donors older than 80 years: a single-center experience

Liver Transplantation from Elderly Donors (≥85 Years Old)

BACKGROUND

Despite the ongoing trend of increasing donor ages in liver transplantation (LT) setting, a notable gap persists in the availability of comprehensive guidelines for the utilization of organs from elderly donors. This study aimed to evaluate the viability of livers grafts from donors aged ≥85 years and report the post-LT outcomes compared with those from "ideal" donors under 40 years old.

METHODS

Conducted retrospectively at a single center from 2005 to 2023, this study compared outcomes of LTs from donors aged ≥85 y/o and ≤40 y/o, with the propensity score matching to the recipient's gender, age, BMI, MELD score, redo-LT, LT indication, and cause of donor death.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients received grafts from donors ≥85 y/o and were compared to 349 liver grafts from donors ≤40 y/o. Prior to PSM, the 5-year overall survival was 63% for the elderly group and 77% for the young group (p = 0.002). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival was 63% and 73% (p = 0.1). A nomogram, developed at the time of graft acceptance and including HCC features, predicted 10-year survival after LT using a graft from a donor aged ≥85.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of organ scarcity, elderly donors emerge as a partial solution. Nonetheless, without proper selection, LT using very elderly donors yields inferior long-term outcomes compared to transplantation from very young donors ≤40 y/o. The resulting nomogram based on pre-transplant criteria allows for the optimization of elderly donor/recipient matching to achieve satisfactory long-term results, in addition to traditional matching methods.

Extended criteria grafts and emerging therapeutics strategy in liver transplantation. The unstable balance between damage and repair

Due to increasing demand for donor organs, "extended criteria" donors are increasingly considered for liver transplantation, including elderly donors and donors after cardiac death. The grafts of this subgroup of donors share a major risk to develop significant features of ischemia reperfusion injury, that may eventually lead to graft failure. Ex-situ machine perfusion technology has gained much interest in liver transplantation, because represents both a useful tool for improving graft quality before transplantation and a platform for the delivery of therapeutics directly to the organ. In this review, we survey ongoing clinical evidences supporting the use of elderly and DCD donors in liver transplantation, and the underlying mechanistic aspects of liver aging and ischemia reperfusion injury that influence graft quality and transplant outcome. Finally, we highlight evidences in the field of new therapeutics to test in MP in the context of recent findings of basic and translational research.

Octogenarian liver grafts: Is their use for transplant currently justified?

AIM

To analyse the impact of octogenarian donors in liver transplantation.

METHODS

We present a retrospective single-center study, performed between November 1996 and March 2015, that comprises a sample of 153 liver transplants. Recipients were divided into two groups according to liver donor age: recipients of donors ≤ 65 years (group A; n = 102), and recipients of donors ≥ 80 years (group B; n = 51). A comparative analysis between the groups was performed. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean values and SD, and qualitative variables as percentages. Differences in properties between qualitative variables were assessed by χ² test. Comparison of quantitative variables was made by t-test. Graft and patient survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

One, 3 and 5-year overall patient survival was 87.3%, 84% and 75.2%, respectively, in recipients of younger grafts vs 88.2%, 84.1% and 66.4%, respectively, in recipients of octogenarian grafts (P = 0.748). One, 3 and 5-year overall graft survival was 84.3%, 83.1% and 74.2%, respectively, in recipients of younger grafts vs 84.3%, 79.4% and 64.2%, respectively, in recipients of octogenarian grafts (P = 0.524). After excluding the patients with hepatitis C virus cirrhosis (16 in group A and 10 in group B), the 1, 3 and 5-year patient (P = 0.657) and graft (P = 0.419) survivals were practically the same in both groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that overall patient survival was adversely affected by cerebrovascular donor death, hepatocarcinoma, and recipient preoperative bilirubin, and overall graft survival was adversely influenced by cerebrovascular donor death, and recipient preoperative bilirubin.

CONCLUSION

The standard criteria for utilization of octogenarian liver grafts are: normal gross appearance and consistency, normal or almost normal liver tests, hemodynamic stability with use of < 10 μg/kg per minute of vasopressors before procurement, intensive care unit stay < 3 d, CIT < 9 h, absence of atherosclerosis in the hepatic and gastroduodenal arteries, and no relevant histological alterations in the pre-transplant biopsy, such as fibrosis, hepatitis, cholestasis or macrosteatosis > 30%.

Extended-criteria donors in liver transplantation Part II: reviewing the impact of extended-criteria donors on the complications and outcomes of liver transplantation

Extended-criteria donors (ECDs) have an impact on early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary complications, relapse of hepatitis C virus (HCV), and survivals. Early allograft dysfunction was frequently seen in grafts with moderate and severe steatosis. Donors after cardiac death (DCD) have been associated with higher rates of graft failure and biliary complications compared to donors after brain death. Extended warm ischemia, reperfusion injury and endothelial activation trigger a cascade, leading to microvascular thrombosis, resulting in biliary necrosis, cholangitis, and graft failure. The risk of HCV recurrence increased by donor age, and associated with using moderately and severely steatotic grafts. With the administration of protease inhibitors sustained virological response was achieved in majority of the patients. Donor risk index and EC donor scores (DS) are reported to be useful, to assess the outcome. The 1-year survival rates were 87% and 40% respectively, for donors with a DS of 0 and 3. Graft survival was excellent up to a DS of 2, however a DS >2 should be avoided in higher-risk recipients. The 1, 3 and 5-year survival of DCD recipients was comparable to optimal donors. However ECDs had minor survival means of 85%, 78.6%, and 72.3%. The graft survival of split liver transplantation (SLT) was comparable to that of whole liver orthotopic liver transplantation. SLT was not regarded as an ECD factor in the MELD era any more. Full-right-full-left split liver transplantation has a significant advantage to extend the high quality donor pool. Hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion can be applied clinically in DCD liver grafts. Feasibility and safety were confirmed. Reperfusion injury was also rare in machine perfused DCD livers.

Transplantation With Livers From Deceased Donors Older Than 75 Years

BACKGROUND

The availability of donor organs limits the number of patients in need who are offered liver transplantation. Measures to expand the donor pool are crucial to prevent on-list mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of livers from deceased donors who were older than 75 years.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients who received a first liver transplant (D75 group) from 2001 to 2011 were included. Donor and recipient data were collected from the Nordic Liver Transplant Registry and medical records. The outcome was compared with a control group of 54 patients who received a liver graft from donors aged 20 to 49 years (D20-49 group). Median donor age was 77 years (range, 75-86 years) in the D75 group and 41 years (range, 20-49 years) in the D20-49 group. Median recipient age was 59 years (range, 31-73 years) in the D75 group and 58 years (range, 31-74 years) in the D20-49 group.

RESULTS

The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient/graft survival values were 87/87%, 81/81%, and 71/67% for the D75 group and 88/87%, 75/73%, and 75/73% for the D20-49 group, respectively. Patient (P = 0.89) and graft (P = 0.79) survival did not differ between groups. The frequency of biliary complications was higher in the D75 group (29.6/13%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Selected livers from donors over age 75 years should not be excluded based on age, which does not compromise patient or graft survival despite a higher frequency of biliary complications.

Using old liver grafts for liver transplantation: Where are the limits?

The scarcity of ideal liver grafts for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has led transplant teams to investigate other sources of grafts in order to augment the donor liver pool. One way to get more liver grafts is to use marginal donors, a not well-defined group which includes mainly donors > 60 years, donors with hypernatremia or macrosteatosis > 30%, donors with hepatitis C virus or hepatitis B virus positive serologies, cold ischemia time > 12 h, non-heart-beating donors, and grafts from split-livers or living-related donations. Perhaps the most practical and frequent measure to increase the liver pool, and thus to reduce waiting list mortality, is to use older livers. In the past years the results of OLT with old livers have improved, mainly due to better selection and maintenance of donors, improvements in surgical techniques in donors and recipients, and intra- and post-OLT management. At the present time, sexagenarian livers are generally accepted, but there still exists some controversy regarding the use of septuagenarian and octogenarian liver grafts. The aim of this paper is to briefly review the aging process of the liver and reported experiences using old livers for OLT. Fundamentally, the series of septuagenarian and octogenarian livers will be addressed to see if there is a limit to using these aged grafts.

Septuagenarian and octogenarian donors provide excellent liver grafts for transplantation

BACKGROUND

Wider utilization of liver grafts from donors ≥ 70 years old could substantially expand the organ pool, but their use remains limited by fear of poorer outcomes. We examined the results at our center of liver transplantation (OLT) using livers from donors ≥ 70 years old.

METHODS

From February 2003 to August 2010, we performed 450 OLT including 58 (13%) using donors ≥ 70 whose outcomes were compared with those using donors <70 years old.

RESULTS

Cerebrovascular causes of death predominated among donors ≥ 70 (85% vs 47% in donors <70; P < .001). In contrast, traumatic causes of death predominated among donors <70 (36% vs 14% in donors ≥ 70; P = .002). Unlike grafts from donors <70 years old, grafts from older individuals had no additional risk factors (steatosis, high sodium, or hemodynamic instability). Both groups were comparable for cold and warm ischemia times. No difference was noted in posttransplant peak transaminases, incidence of primary nonfunction, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary strictures, or retransplantation rates between groups. The 1- and 5-year patient survivals were 88% and 82% in recipients of livers <70 versus 90% and 84% in those from ≥ 70 years old (P = .705). Recipients of older grafts, who were 6 years older than recipients of younger grafts (P < .001), tended to have a lower laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (P = .074).

CONCLUSIONS

Short and mid-term survival following OLT using donors ≥ 70 yo can be excellent provided that there is adequate donor and recipient selection. Septuagenarians and octogenarians with cerebrovascular ischemic and bleeding accidents represent a large pool of potential donors whose wider use could substantially reduce mortality on the OLT waiting list.

Extended donors in liver transplantation

Several criteria are used to differentiate between standard and extended allograft donors. These criteria include deceased after cardiac death, advanced donor age, steatosis, previous malignancy in the donor, hepatitis C virus-positive allografts, human T-cell lymphotropic virus-positive allografts, active infections in the donor, high-risk donors, split liver transplantations, and living donor liver transplantations. Review of the literature can lead each practitioner to incorporate extended criteria donors into their transplant program, thereby individualizing the use of these allografts, increasing the donor pool, and decreasing overall waitlist mortality.