Donor-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Donor-Recipient Matching in Liver Transplantation

Impact of Albumin-Bilirubin Score on Short- and Long-Term Survival After Living-Donor Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, stratified from the ALBI score, may have prognostic value in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We aim to evaluate the prognostic abilities of the ALBI score/grade among living-donor liver transplantation patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of 81 patients who underwent living-donor liver transplant at Kobe University Hospital between June 2000 and October 2018. The efficacy of the ALBI score/grade as a prognostic factor was assessed and compared with that of the well-established Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score.

MAIN FINDINGS

Multivariate analysis indicated that recipient age (P = .003), donor age (P = .003), ALBI score ≥ -1.28 (P = .002), and ALBI grade III (P = .004) were independently associated with post-transplant survival. A high MELD score was not associated with post-transplant survival in univariate or multivariate analyses. Although there was no significant difference in the overall survival rate relative to recipient and donor age, ALBI score/grade was significantly associated with the 1- and 5-year survival rates (P = .023, P = .005). ALBI scores specifically detected fatal complications of post-transplant graft dysfunction (P = .031) and infection (P = .020).

CONCLUSION

ALBI score/grade predicted patient survival more precisely than the MELD score did, suggesting that it is a more useful prognostic factor compared to the MELD score in living-donor liver transplantation cases.

Impact of Donor Age on Recipient Survival in Adult-to-Adult Living-donor Liver Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of donor age on recipient outcome after living-donor partial liver transplantation (LDLT).

BACKGROUND

Donor age is a well-known prognostic factor in deceased donor liver transplantation; however, its role in LDLT remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 315 consecutive cases of primary adult-to-adult LDLT in our center between April 2006 and March 2014. Recipients were divided into 5 groups according to the donor age: D-20s (n = 60); D-30s (n = 72); D-40s (n = 57); D-50s (n = 94); and D-60s (n = 32). The recipient survival and the association with various clinical factors were investigated.

RESULTS

Recipient survival proportions were significantly higher in D-20s compared with all the other groups (P = 0.008, < 0.001, < 0.001, and = 0.006, vs D-30s, -40s, -50s, and -60s, respectively), whereas there was no association between recipient survival and their own age. There are 3 typical relationships between donors and recipients in adult-to-adult LDLT: from child-to-parent, between spouses/siblings, and from parent-to-child. The overall survival in child-to-parent was significantly higher than in spouses/siblings (P = 0.002) and in parent-to-child (P = 0.005), despite significantly higher recipient age in child-to-parent [59 (42-69) years, P < 0.001]. Contrastingly, parent-to-child exhibited the lowest survival, despite the youngest recipient age [26 (20-43) years, P < 0.001]. In addition, younger donor age exhibited significantly better recipient survival both in hepatitis C virus-related and in non-hepatitis C virus diseases. Univariate and multivariate analyses both demonstrated that donor age and graft-type (right-sided livers) are independent prognostic factors for recipient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Donor age is an independent, strong prognostic factor in adult-to-adult LDLT.

Decade-Long Trends in Liver Transplant Waitlist Removal Due to Illness Severity: The Impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Policy

BACKGROUND

The central tenet of liver transplant organ allocation is to prioritize the sickest patients first. However, a 2007 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulatory policy, Conditions of Participation (COP), which mandates publically reported transplant center performance assessment and outcomes-based auditing, critically altered waitlist management and clinical decision making. We examine the extent to which COP implementation is associated with increased removal of the "sickest" patients from the liver transplant waitlist.

STUDY DESIGN

This study included 90,765 adult (aged 18 years and older) deceased donor liver transplant candidates listed at 102 transplant centers from April 2002 through December 2012 (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). We quantified the effect of COP implementation on trends in waitlist removal due to illness severity and 1-year post-transplant mortality using interrupted time series segmented Poisson regression analysis.

RESULTS

We observed increasing trends in delisting due to illness severity in the setting of comparable demographic and clinical characteristics. Delisting abruptly increased by 16% at the time of COP implementation, and likelihood of being delisted continued to increase by 3% per quarter thereafter, without attenuation (p < 0.001). Results remained consistent after stratifying on key variables (ie, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and age). The COP did not significantly impact 1-year post-transplant mortality (p = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the 2007 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services COP policy was a quality initiative designed to improve patient outcomes, in reality, it failed to show beneficial effects in the liver transplant population. Patients who could potentially benefit from transplantation are increasingly being denied this lifesaving procedure while transplant mortality rates remain unaffected. Policy makers and clinicians should strive to balance candidate and recipient needs from a population-benefit perspective when designing performance metrics and during clinical decision making for patients on the waitlist.

Comparison of Different Scoring Systems Based on Both Donor and Recipient Characteristics for Predicting Outcome after Living Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In order to provide a good match between donor and recipient in liver transplantation, four scoring systems [the product of donor age and Model for End-stage Liver Disease score (D-MELD), the score to predict survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT), the balance of risk score (BAR), and the transplant risk index (TRI)] based on both donor and recipient parameters were designed. This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of the four scores in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and compare them with the MELD score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical data of 249 adult patients undergoing LDLT in our center were retrospectively evaluated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of each score were calculated and compared at 1-, 3-, 6-month and 1-year after LDLT.

RESULTS

The BAR at 1-, 3-, 6-month and 1-year after LDLT and the D-MELD and TRI at 1-, 3- and 6-month after LDLT showed acceptable performances in the prediction of survival (AUC>0.6), while the SOFT showed poor discrimination at 6-month after LDLT (AUC = 0.569). In addition, the D-MELD and BAR displayed positive correlations with the length of ICU stay (D-MELD, p = 0.025; BAR, p = 0.022). The SOFT was correlated with the time of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

The D-MELD, BAR and TRI provided acceptable performance in predicting survival after LDLT. However, even though these scoring systems were based on both donor and recipient parameters, only the BAR provided better performance than the MELD in predicting 1-year survival after LDLT.

Recipient-donor age matching in liver transplantation: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether donor age was a predictor of outcomes in liver transplantation, representing an independent risk factor as well as its impact related to recipient age-matching.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from 221 adult liver transplantations performed from January 2006 to September 2009.

RESULTS

Compared with recipients who received grafts from donors <60 years old, transplantation from older donors was associated with significantly higher rates of graft rejection (9.5% vs 3.5%; P = .05) and worse graft survival (P = .021). When comparing recipient and graft survivals according to age matching, we observed significantly worse values for age-mismatched (P values .029 and .037, respectively) versus age-matched patients. After adjusting for covariates in a multivariate model, age mismatch was an independent risk factor for patient death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-4.17; P = .027) and graft loss (HR 3.86, 95% CI 1.02-15.47; P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest to that optimized donor allocation takes into account both donor and recipient ages maximize survival of liver-transplanted patients.

Patients on liver transplantation waiting list with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥ 30: experience in the Organizzazione Centro Sud Trapianti macro area

INTRODUCTION

From 2011 a program was developed for liver transplant recipients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥30. We examined its effectiveness and impact on the other subjects on the waiting list.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed requests received between January 2011 and May 2012 for the primary pathology, the outcome, the average waiting time, and the origin of the organ. We examined the ordinary waiting list for mortality rates and numbers of transplantations over this period (group A) versus a comparable preceding period (group B).

RESULTS

There were 38 requests for 33 patients. Their primary pathologies were cirrhosis associated with viral infection (n = 15), delayed graft failure (DGF; n = 5), biliary cirrhosis (n = 4), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; n = 3 including 2 with cirrhosis), cryptogenic cirrhosis (n = 3), postalcoholic cirrhosis (n = 2), metabolic disease (n = 2), and iatrogenic disease (n = 1). Of the requests, 25 were successfully dealt with, whereas 5 requests were temporarily suspended and 2 were permanently suspended because of better or worse patient conditions. There were 6 deceased patients. Transplanted organs came from the inter-regional area in 64% of cases. The average waiting time was 5.9 days. Within group A were a 311 transplantations among 723 waiting list patients on with a 13.7% mortality rate. Within group B were 305 transplantations among 871 wait-listed patients with a 14% mortality rate.

DISCUSSION

The liver transplantation program for recipients with MELD scores ≥ 30 allowed recipients in critical condition to receive grafts without altering substantially the opportunities for recipients on the elective waiting list.

Deceased donor risk factors influencing liver transplant outcome

As the pressure for providing liver transplantation to more and more candidates increases, transplant programs have begun to consider deceased donor characteristics that were previously considered unacceptable. With this trend, attention has focused on better defining those donor factors that can impact the outcome of liver transplantation. This review examines deceased donor factors that have been associated with patient or graft survival as well as delayed graft function and other liver transplant results.

Donor assessment scores: relevance and complete irrelevance

1. Donor assessment scores can be used to prognosticate recipient outcomes but are often not clinically relevant. 2. The donor risk index, the survival outcomes following liver transplantation score, and the Donor Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score have specific advantages and disadvantages with respect to accuracy and ease of use. 3. The significance of the donor assessment is undermined by an allocation system that sometimes limits ideal donor-recipient matching and whose sole objective is the minimization of wait-list mortality instead of the benefit of transplantation.