Early allograft dysfunction is associated with excess resource utilization after liver transplantation

Lactate concentration at the end of liver transplant: Early predictor of graft function or just one piece of the puzzle?

BACKGROUND

The post-operative course after Liver Transplantation (LT) can be complicated by early allograft dysfunction (EAD), primary nonfunction (PNF) and death. A lactate concentration at the end of transplant of ≥5 mmol/L was recently proposed as a predictive marker of PNF, EAD, and mortality; this study aimed to validate these previous reports in a large single center cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult liver transplant recipients who received grafts from deceased donors at our center between June 2012 and May 2021. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the lactate concentration at the end of transplantation were computed to determine the AUC for PNF, EAD and mortality at 90 days.

RESULTS

In our cohort of 1137 cases, the AUCs for lactate to predict EAD, PNF and mortality were respectively .56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .53-.60), .69 (95% CI: .52-.85), and .74 (95% CI: .63-.84).

CONCLUSION

The clinical value of lactate concentration at the end of transplantation to predict PNF, EAD and mortality at 90 days was, at best, modest, as shown by the relatively low AUCs. Our findings cannot validate previous reports that the lactate level alone is a good predictor of poor outcomes after liver transplantation.

End-ischemic hypothermic oxygenated perfusion for extended criteria donors in liver transplantation: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial-HOPExt

BACKGROUND

Given the scarce donor supply, an increasing number of so-called marginal or extended criteria donor (ECD) organs are used for liver transplantation. These ECD liver grafts are however known to be associated with a higher rate of early allograft dysfunction and primary non-function because of a greater vulnerability to ischemia-reperfusion injury. The end-ischemic hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HOPE) technique may improve outcomes of liver transplantation with ECD grafts by decreasing reperfusion injury.

METHODS

HOPExt trial is a comparative open-label, multicenter, national, prospective, randomized, controlled study, in two parallel groups, using static cold storage, the gold standard procedure, as control. The trial will enroll adult patients on the transplant waiting list for liver failure or liver cirrhosis and/or liver malignancy requiring liver transplantation and receiving an ECD liver graft from a brain-dead donor. In the experimental group, ECD liver grafts will first undergo a classical static cold (4 °C) storage followed by a hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) for a period of 1 to 4 h. The control group will consist of the classic static cold storage which is the gold standard procedure in liver transplantation. The primary objective of this trial is to study the efficacy of HOPE used before transplantation of ECD liver grafts from brain-dead donors in reducing postoperative early allograft dysfunction within the first 7 postoperative days compared to simple cold static storage.

DISCUSSION

We present in this protocol all study procedures in regard to the achievement of the HOPExt trial, to prevent biased analysis of trial outcomes and improve the transparency of the trial results. Enrollment of patients in the HOPExt trial has started on September 10, 2019, and is ongoing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03929523. Registered on April 29, 2019, before the start of inclusion.

Days alive and out of hospital after liver transplant: comparing a patient-centered outcome between recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory and brain deaths

We retrospectively compared outcomes between recipients of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) liver allografts using days alive and out of hospital (DAOH), a composite outcome of mortality, morbidity, and burden of care from patient perspective. The initial length of stay and duration of any subsequent readmission for the first year after liver transplantation were recorded. Donor category and perioperative and intraoperative characteristics pertinent to liver transplantation were included. The primary outcome was DAOH₃₆₅. Secondary outcomes included early allograft dysfunction and hepatic arterial and biliary complications. Although the incidence of both early allograft dysfunction (P < .001) and ischemic cholangiopathy (P < .001) was significantly greater in the recipients of DCD, there were no significant differences in the length of stay and DAOH₃₆₅. The median DAOH₃₆₅ was 355 days for recipients of DBD allografts and 353 days for recipients of DCD allografts (P = .34). Increased transfusion burden, longer cold ischemic time, and non-White recipients were associated with decreased DAOH. There were no significant differences in graft failure (P = .67), retransplantation (P = .67), or 1-year mortality (P = .96) between the 2 groups. DAOH is a practical and attainable measure of outcome after liver transplantation. This metric should be considered for quality measurement and reporting in liver transplantation.

Decreasing Significance of Early Allograft Dysfunction with Rising Use of Nonconventional Donors

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7−1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7−1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

Combination of arterial lactate levels and Cv-aCO2/Da-vO2 ratio to predict early allograft dysfunction after liver transplantation

PURPOSE

We examined the ability of the P(v-a)CO2/Da-vO2 ratio combined with elevated lactate levels to predict early allograft dysfunction (EAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were classified into four groups according to lactate levels and P(v-a)CO2/Da-vO2 ratio: Group 1; lactate >2.0 mmol/L and P(v-a)CO2/Da-vO2 ratio >1.0; Group 2; lactate >2.0 mmol/L and P(v-a)CO2/Da-vO2 ratio <1.0; group 3; lactate<2.0 mmol/L and P(v-a)CO2/Da-vO2 ratio >1.0; group 4; lactate<2.0 mmol/L and P(v-a)CO2/Da-vO2 ratio <1.0. We defined EAD according to Olthoff criteria.

RESULTS

One-hundred and fifty patients were included. EAD occurred in 41 patients (27.3%), and was associated with worse graft survival at 1 year (92% vs. 73%; P = ,003) as well as a higher re-transplantation rate (4,6% vs. 17,1%; P = ,019). The multivariate analysis revealed that P(v-a)CO2/Da-vO2 ratio at T6 [OR 7.05(CI95% 2.77-19.01, P<.001)] was an independent predictor for EAD. Belonging to group 1 at 6 h was associated with worse clinical outcomes but no association was found with 1-year graft survival or 1-year patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single center, prospective, observational study in patients who received an OLT, we found that elevated lactate levels combined with a high Cv-aCO2/Da-vO2 after 6 h was associated with the development of EAD and worse clinical outcomes in the early postoperative period.

Post-Liver Transplant Early Allograft Dysfunction Modifies the Effect of Pre-Liver Transplant Renal Dysfunction on Post-Liver Transplant Survival

Pre-liver transplantation (LT) renal dysfunction is associated with poor post-LT survival. We studied whether early allograft dysfunction (EAD) modifies this association. Data on 2,856 primary LT recipients who received a transplant between 1998 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who died within the first post-LT week or received multiorgan transplants and previous LT recipients were excluded. EAD was defined as (1) total bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL on postoperative day (POD) 7, (2) international normalized ratio ≥1.6 on POD 7, and/or (3) alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase ≥2000 IU/mL in the first postoperative week. Pre-LT renal dysfunction was defined as serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL or on renal replacement therapy at LT. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to pre-LT renal dysfunction and post-LT EAD development. Recipients who had both pre-LT renal dysfunction and post-LT EAD had the worst unadjusted 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year post-LT patient and graft survival, whereas patients who had neither renal dysfunction nor EAD had the best survival (P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple factors, the risk of death was significantly higher only in those with both pre-LT renal dysfunction and post-LT EAD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-3.03; P < 0.001), whereas those with renal dysfunction and no EAD had a comparable risk of death to those with normal kidney function at LT (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P = 0.41). Results remained unchanged when pre-LT renal dysfunction was redefined using different glomerular filtration rate cutoffs. Pre-LT renal dysfunction negatively impacts post-LT survival only in patients who develop EAD. Livers at higher risk of post-LT EAD should be used with caution in recipients with pre-LT renal dysfunction.

The Impact of Performance Status on Length of Hospital Stay and Clinical Complications Following Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Impaired pretransplant performance status (PS) is associated with chronic liver disease (CLD). We studied its impact on hospital length of stay (LOS), complications, and readmissions in the first year after liver transplantation.

METHODS

The Standard National Liver Transplant Registry was linked to a hospital administrative dataset, and all first-time liver transplant recipients with CLD aged ≥18 years in England were identified. A modified 3-level Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was used to assess PS. Linear- and logistic-fixed effect regression models were used to estimate the effect of specific posttransplant complications and readmissions in the first year after transplantation.

RESULTS

Six thousand nine hundred sixty-eight recipients were included. Impaired PS was associated with an increased LOS in the initial posttransplant period (comparing ECOG 1-3, adjusted difference 7.2 d; 95% confidence [CI], 4.8-9.6; P < 0.001) and in time spent on the ITU (adjusted difference 1.2 d; 95% CI, 0.4-2.0; P < 0.001). There was no significant association between ECOG status and total LOS of later admissions (adjusted difference, 2.5 d; 95% CI, -0.4-5.5; P = 0.23). Those with a poorer ECOG status had an increased incidence of renal failure (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = 0.004) and infection (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; P = 0.02) but not an increased incidence of readmission (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

In liver transplant recipients with CLD, impaired pretransplant PS is associated with prolonged LOS in the immediate posttransplant period but not with LOS of later admissions in the first year after transplantation. Impaired PS increased the risk of renal failure and infection.

Multicenter validation of the liver graft assessment following transplantation (L-GrAFT) score for assessment of early allograft dysfunction

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) following liver transplantation (LT) negatively impacts graft and patient outcomes. Previously we reported that the liver graft assessment following transplantation (L-GrAFT₇) risk score was superior to binary EAD or the model for early allograft function (MEAF) score for estimating 3-month graft failure-free survival in a single-center derivation cohort. Herein, we sought to externally validate L-GrAFT₇, and compare its prognostic performance to EAD and MEAF.

METHODS

Accuracies of L-GrAFT₇, EAD, and MEAF were compared in a 3-center US validation cohort (n = 3,201), and a Consortium for Organ Preservation in Europe (COPE) normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) trial cohort (n = 222); characteristics were compared to assess generalizability.

RESULTS

Compared to the derivation cohort, patients in the validation and NMP trial cohort had lower recipient median MELD scores; were less likely to require pretransplant hospitalization, renal replacement therapy or mechanical ventilation; and had superior 1-year overall (90% and 95% vs. 84%) and graft failure-free (88% and 93% vs. 81%) survival, with a lower incidence of 3-month graft failure (7.4% and 4.0% vs. 11.1%; p <0.001 for all comparisons). Despite significant differences in cohort characteristics, L-GrAFT₇ maintained an excellent validation AUROC of 0.78, significantly superior to binary EAD (AUROC 0.68, p = 0.001) and MEAF scores (AUROC 0.72, p <0.001). In post hoc analysis of the COPE NMP trial, the highest tertile of L-GrAFT₇ was significantly associated with time to liver allograft (hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, p = 0.016), Clavien ≥IIIB (HR 2.60, p = 0.034) and ≥IVa (HR 4.99, p = 0.011) complications; post-LT length of hospitalization (p = 0.002); and renal replacement therapy (odds ratio 3.62, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

We have validated the L-GrAFT₇ risk score as a generalizable, highly accurate, individualized risk assessment of 3-month liver allograft failure that is superior to existing scores. L-GrAFT₇ may standardize grading of early hepatic allograft function and serve as a clinical endpoint in translational studies (www.lgraft.com).

LAY SUMMARY

Early allograft dysfunction negatively affects outcomes following liver transplantation. In independent multicenter US and European cohorts totaling 3,423 patients undergoing liver transplantation, the liver graft assessment following transplantation (L-GrAFT) risk score is validated as a superior measure of early allograft function that accurately discriminates 3-month graft failure-free survival and post-liver transplantation complications.

A nomogram for prediction of early allograft dysfunction in living donor liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the treatment of choice for end-stage liver diseases. However, early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is frequently encountered and associated with graft loss or mortality after transplantation. This study aimed to establish a predictive model of EAD after living donor liver transplantation. A total of 77 liver transplants were recruited to the study. Multivariate analysis was utilized to identify significant risk factors for EAD. A nomogram was constructed according to the contributions of the risk factors. The predictive values were determined by discrimination and calibration methods. A cohort of 30 patients was recruited to validate this predictive model. Four independent risk factors, including donor age, intraoperative blood loss, preoperative alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and reperfusion total bilirubin, were identified and used to build the nomogram. The c-statistics of the primary cohort and the validation group were 0.846 and 0.767, respectively. The calibration curves for the probability of EAD presented an acceptable agreement between the prediction by the nomogram and the actual incidence. In conclusion, the study developed a new nomogram for predicting the risk of EAD following living donor liver transplantation. This model may help clinicians to determine individual risk of EAD following living donor liver transplantation.

Protein Profiles of Pretransplant Grafts Predict Early Allograft Dysfunction After Liver Transplantation From Donation After Circulatory Death

BACKGROUND

Predicting the development of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) following liver transplantation (LT) remains challenging for transplant clinicians. The objectives of this study are to investigate the potential relationship between the protein profiles of pretransplant grafts and the onset of EAD, and then combine with clinical parameters to construct a mathematically predictive model.

METHODS

Clinical data of 121 LT procedures from donation after circulatory death at the authors' center were analyzed. The expression levels of 7 studied proteins were determined by immunohistochemistry. Another independent cohort of 37 subjects was designed for further validation of the predictive model.

RESULTS

With an incidence of 43.0% (52/121), EAD was linked to significantly increased risk of acute kidney injury and renal replacement therapy, as well as reduced 6-month patient and liver graft survival. Allograft weight and high intrahepatic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression were identified as independent risk factors of EAD and survival outcomes. Liver grafts with high VEGF expression exhibited delayed functional recovery within the first postoperative week. The combination of VEGF overexpression and EAD yielded the highest frequency of renal dysfunction and the worst survival. Based on allograft weight and intrahepatic VEGF expression, an EAD risk assessment model was developed. The incidence of EAD differed significantly between grafts with risk scores ≥-1.72 and <-1.72. The model functioned well in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretransplant intrahepatic protein profiling contributes to the estimation of early graft performance and recipient outcomes following LT. The predictive model could allow for an accurate prediction of EAD.

Model for early allograft function is predictive of early graft loss in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation is associated with higher rates of graft loss. In this paper, we explored whether the Model for Early Allograft Function (MEAF) predicted outcome in DCD liver transplantation. We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from all adult DCD (Maastricht 3) livers transplanted in Cambridge and Edinburgh between 1 January 2011 and 30 June 2017, excluding those undergoing any form of machine perfusion. 187 DCD liver transplants were performed during the study period. DCD liver transplants with a lower MEAF score had a significantly better survival compared to those with a high MEAF score (Mantel-Cox P < .0001); this was largely due to early graft loss. Beyond 28 days post-transplant, there were no significant long-term graft or patient survival differences irrespective of the grade of MEAF (Mantel-Cox P = .64 and P = .43, respectively). The MEAF score correlated with the length of ICU (P = .0011) and hospital stay (P = .0007), but did not predict the requirement for retransplantation for ischemic cholangiopathy (P = .37) or readmission (P = .74). In this study, a high MEAF score predicted early graft loss, but not the subsequent need for re-transplantation or late graft failure as a result of intrahepatic ischemic bile duct pathology.

Association between longer hospitalization and development of de novo donor specific antibodies in simultaneous liver-kidney transplant recipients

Background: De novo Donor Specific Antibodies (DSA) are considered as a risk factor for the kidney allograft outcomes in recipients after simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT). We hypothesized that length of hospital stay (LOS) might be associated with de novo DSA development of due to the increased likelihood of receiving blood transfusions with reduced immunosuppressive regimens.Methods: This study is a single-center, retrospective cohort study consisting of 85 recipients who underwent SLKT from 2009 to 2018 in our hospital. We divided the patients into two groups according to LOS [long hospital stay (L) group (LOS >14 days) and short hospital stay (S) group (LOS ≤14 days)]. Propensity score (PS) has been created using logistic regression to predict LOS greater than median of 14 days. The association between the presence of de novo DSA and LOS was assessed by logistic regression models adjusted for PS.Results: The mean age at transplantation of the entire cohort was 55.5 ± 10.1 years. Sixty percent of the recipients were male and Caucasian. Median LOS in (L) group was three-fold longer than (S) group [L: median 30 days (IQR: 21-52), S: median 8.5 days (IQR: 7-11)]. Eight patients developed de novo DSA after SLKT (9.4%), all of them were in (L) group. Longer LOS was significantly associated with higher risk of development of de novo DSA in unadjusted (OR_{+ each 5 days}: 1.09, 95% CI:1.02-1.16) and PS adjusted (OR_{+ each 5 days}: 1.11, 95% CI:1.02-1.21) analysis.Conclusion: Longer hospitalization is significantly associated with the development of de novo DSA in SLKT.

Prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ischaemia-free liver transplantation (IFLT) in the treatment of end-stage liver disease

INTRODUCTION

During conventional liver transplantation (CLT), ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) is inevitable and is associated with complications such as early allograft dysfunction (EAD), primary non-function and ischaemic-type biliary lesions. We have established a novel procedure called ischaemia-free liver transplantation (IFLT). The results from a pilot study suggest that IFLT might prevent IRI and yield better transplant outcomes than CLT. The purpose of this study was to further assess the efficacy and safety of IFLT versus CLT in patients with end-stage liver disease.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an investigator-initiated, open-label, phase III, prospective, single-centre randomised controlled trial on the effects of IFLT in patients with end-stage liver disease. Adult patients (aged 18-75 years) eligible for liver transplantation will be screened for participation in this trial and will be randomised between the IFLT group (n=34) and the CLT group (n=34). In the IFLT group, the donor liver will be procured, preserved and implanted with continuous normothermic machine perfusion (NMP). In the CLT group, the donor liver will be procured after a fast cold flush, preserved in 0°C-4°C solution and implanted under hypothermic and hypoxic conditions. Patients in both groups will be managed according to the standard protocol of our centre. The primary end point is the incidence of EAD after liver transplantation. Intraoperative and postoperative parameters of donor livers and recipients will be observed and recorded, and postoperative liver graft function, complications and recipient and graft survival will be evaluated. After a 12-month follow-up of the last enrolled recipient, the outcomes will be analysed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IFLT versus CLT in patients with end-stage liver disease.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University. The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and peer-reviewed scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900021158.

Evaluation of Early Allograft Function Using the Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation Risk Score Model

Importance

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) following a liver transplant (LT) unequivocally portends adverse graft and patient outcomes, but a widely accepted classification or grading system is lacking.

Objective

To develop a model for individualized risk estimation of graft failure after LT and then compare the model's prognostic performance with the existing binary EAD definition (bilirubin level of ≥10 mg/dL on postoperative day 7, international normalized ratio of ≥1.6 on postoperative day 7, or aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase level of >2000 U/L within the first 7 days) and the Model for Early Allograft Function (MEAF) score.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective single-center analysis used a transplant database to identify all adult patients who underwent a primary LT and had data on 10 days of post-LT laboratory variables at the Dumont-UCLA Transplant Center of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA between February 1, 2002, and June 30, 2015. Data collection took place from January 4, 2016, to June 30, 2016. Data analysis was conducted from July 1, 2016, to August 30, 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Three-month graft failure-free survival.

Results

Of 2021 patients who underwent primary LT over the study period, 2008 (99.4%) had available perioperative data and were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of recipients was 56 (49-62) years, and 1294 recipients (64.4%) were men. Overall survival and graft-failure-free survival rates were 83% and 81% at year 1, 74% and 71% at year 3, and 69% and 65% at year 5, with an 11.1% (222 recipients) incidence of 3-month graft failure or death. Multivariate factors associated with 3-month graft failure-free survival included post-LT aspartate aminotransferase level, international normalized ratio, bilirubin level, and platelet count, measures of which were used to calculate the Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation (L-GrAFT) risk score. The L-GrAFT model had an excellent C statistic of 0.85, with a significantly superior discrimination of 3-month graft failure-free survival compared with the existing EAD definition (C statistic, 0.68; P < .001) and the MEAF score (C statistic, 0.70; P < .001). Compared with patients with lower L-GrAFT risk, LT recipients in the highest 10th percentile of L-GrAFT scores had higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (median [IQR], 34 [26-40] vs 31 [25-38]; P = .005); greater need for pretransplant hospitalization (56.8% vs 44.8%; P = .003), renal replacement therapy (42.9% vs 30.5%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (35.8% vs 18.1%; P < .001), and vasopressors (22.9% vs 11.0%; P < .001); longer cold ischemia times (median [IQR], 436 [311-539] vs 401 [302-506] minutes; P = .04); greater intraoperative blood transfusions (median [IQR], 17 [10-26] vs 10 [6-17] units of packed red blood cells; P < .001); and older donors (median [IQR] age, 47 [28-56] vs 41 [25-52] years; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

The L-GrAFT risk score allows a highly accurate, individualized risk estimation of 3-month graft failure following LT that is more accurate than existing EAD and MEAF scores. Multicenter validation may allow for the adoption of the L-GrAFT as a tool for evaluating the need for a retransplant, for establishing standardized grading of early allograft function across transplant centers, and as a highly accurate clinical end point in translational studies aiming to mitigate ischemia or reperfusion injury by modulating donor quality and recipient factors.

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a predictor of early graft dysfunction following living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is predictive of poor graft and patient survival following living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Considering the impact of the inflammatory response on graft injury extent following LDLT, we investigated the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and EAD, 1-year graft failure, and mortality following LDLT, and compared it to C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and the Glasgow prognostic score.

METHODS

A total of 1960 consecutive adult LDLT recipients (1531/429 as development/validation cohort) were retrospectively evaluated. Cut-offs were derived using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and multivariable regression and Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The risk of EAD increased proportionally with increasing NLR, and the NLR AUROC was 0.73, similar to CRP and procalcitonin and higher than the rest. NLR ≥ 2.85 (best cut-off) showed a significantly higher EAD occurrence (20.5% vs 5.8%, P < 0.001), higher 1-year graft failure (8.2% vs 4.9%, log-rank P = 0.009) and higher 1-year mortality (7% vs 4.5%, log-rank P = 0.039). NLR ≥ 2.85 was an independent predictor of EAD (odds ratio, 1.89 [1.26-2.84], P = 0.002) after multivariable adjustment, whereas CRP and procalcitonin were not. Increasing NLR was independently associated with higher 1-year graft failure and mortality (both P < 0.001). Consistent results in the validation cohort strengthened the prognostic value of NLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative NLR ≥ 2.85 predicted higher risk of EAD, 1-year graft failure and 1-year mortality following LDLT, and NLR was superior to other parameters, suggesting that preoperative NLR may be a practical index for predicting graft function following LDLT.

Brain death-induced cytokine release is not associated with primary graft dysfunction: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between donor plasma cytokine levels and the development of primary graft dysfunction of organs transplanted from deceased donors.

METHODS

Seventeen deceased donors and the respective 47 transplant recipients were prospectively included in the study. Recipients were divided into two groups: group 1, patients who developed primary graft dysfunction; and group 2, patients who did not develop primary graft dysfunction. Donor plasma levels of TNF, IL-6, IL-1β, and IFN-γ assessed by ELISA were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine organs were retrieved, and 48 transplants were performed. Donor plasma cytokine levels did not differ between groups (in pg/mL): TNF, group 1: 10.8 (4.3 - 30.8) versus group 2: 8.7 (4.1 - 33.1), p = 0.63; IL-6, group 1: 1617.8 (106.7 - 5361.7) versus group 2: 922.9 (161.7 - 5361.7), p = 0.56; IL-1β, group 1: 0.1 (0.1 - 126.1) versus group 2: 0.1 (0.1 - 243.6), p = 0.60; and IFN-γ, group 1: 0.03 (0.02 - 0.2) versus group 2: 0.03 (0.02 - 0.1), p = 0.93). Similar findings were obtained when kidney transplants were analyzed separately.

CONCLUSION

In this sample of transplant recipients, deceased donor plasma cytokines TNF, IL-6, IL-1β, and IFN-γ were not associated with the development of primary graft dysfunction.

Prevalence and Impact of Reformed and De Novo Anti-HLA Donor-Specific Antibodies in Liver Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence and impact of pre-existing and de novo anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is still controversial. We investigated the prevalence of DSAs and their implication in the development of allograft dysfunction after OLT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 65 liver transplant patients were tested for anti-HLA antibodies, with single antigen bead technology, before, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after transplantation, and thereafter annually, along with other risk factors. Sixteen out of 65 patients (24.6%) had circulating pre-existing anti-HLA antibodies, and 4 of them (25%) had DSAs. All patients positive for anti-HLA antibodies (100%) presented allograft dysfunction. Fourteen out of 65 patients (21.5%) had circulating de novo DSAs, and 12 out of 14 (85.7%) presented allograft dysfunction. The investigated risk factors for allograft dysfunction were: recipient and donor age, time on the waiting list, cold ischemia time, cytomegalovirus infection, immunosuppression regimen, de novo DSAs, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), direct bilirubin and total bilirubin peak post-transplant, and alkaline phosphatase. The multivariate analysis showed that de novo DSAs and time on the waiting list were independent risk factors for allograft dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that de novo DSAs are an independent risk factor for allograft dysfunction, along with time on the waiting list.

Cold ischemia time is an important risk factor for post-liver transplant prolonged length of stay

Risk analysis of cold ischemia time (CIT) in liver transplantation has largely focused on patient and graft survival. Posttransplant length of stay is a sensitive marker of morbidity and cost. We hypothesize that CIT is a risk factor for posttransplant prolonged length of stay (PLOS) and aim to conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of CIT and PLOS. We retrospectively reviewed all adult, first-time liver transplants between March 2002 and September 2016 in the United Network for Organ Sharing database. The 67,426 recipients were categorized by hourly CIT increments. Multivariate logistic regression of PLOS (defined as >30 days), CIT groups, and an extensive list of confounding variables was performed. Linear regression between length of stay and CIT as continuous variables was also performed. CIT 1-6 hours was protective against PLOS, whereas CIT >7 hours was associated with increased odds for PLOS. The lowest odds for PLOS were observed with 1-2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.92) and 2-3 hours (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78) of CIT. OR for PLOS steadily increased with increasing CIT, reaching the greatest odds for PLOS with 13-14 hours (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.57-2.67) and 15-16 hours (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.33) of CIT. Linear regression revealed a positive correlation between length of stay and CIT with a correlation coefficient of +0.35 (P < 0.001). In conclusion, post-liver transplant length of stay is sensitive to CIT, with a substantial increase in the odds of PLOS observed with nearly every additional hour of cold ischemia. We conclude that CIT should be minimized to protect against the morbidity and cost associated with posttransplant PLOS. Liver Transplantation 24 762-768 2018 AASLD.

Intraregional model for end-stage liver disease score variation in liver transplantation: Disparity in our own backyard

Variation in average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at liver transplantation (LT) by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) regions is well documented. The present study aimed to investigate MELD variation at the interregional, intraregional, and intra-donation service area (DSA) levels. Patients undergoing LT between 2015 and 2016 were obtained from the UNOS standard analysis and research file. The distribution of allocation MELD score including median, skew, and kurtosis was examined for all transplant programs. Intraregional median allocation MELD varied significantly within all 11 UNOS regions. The largest variation between programs was seen in region 5 (MELD 24.0 versus 38.5) and region 3 (MELD 20.5 versus 32.0). Regions 1, 5, and 9 had the largest proportion of programs with a highly negative skewed MELD score (50%, 57%, and 57%, respectively), whereas regions 3, 6, 10, and 11 did not have any programs with a highly negative skew. MELD score distribution was also examined in programs located in the same DSA, where no barriers exist and theoretically no significant difference in allocation should be observed. The largest DSA variation in median allocation MELD score was seen in NYRT-OP1 LiveOnNY (MELD score variation 11), AZOB-OP1 Donor Network of Arizona (MELD score variation 11), MAOB-OP1 New England Organ Bank (MELD score variation 9), and TXGC-OP1 LifeGift Organ Donation Ctr (MELD score variation 9). In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that this MELD disparity is not only present at the interregional level but can be seen within regions and even within DSAs between programs located as close as several city blocks away. Although organ availability likely accounts for a component of this disparity, the present study suggests that transplant center behavior may also play a significant role. Liver Transplantation 24 488-496 2018 AASLD.

Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Incidence of Early Allograft Dysfunction Following Liver Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is frequent complication post-liver transplantation and is closely related to recipient's mortality and morbidity. We sought to develop a nomogram for predicting incidence of EAD.

METHODS

Based on multivariate analysis of donor, recipient, and operation data of 199 liver transplants from deceased donors between 2013 and 2015, we identified 5 significant risk factors for EAD to build a nomogram. The model was subjected to prospective validation with a cohort of 42 patients who was recruited between January and June 2016. The predictive accuracy and discriminative ability were measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observation was showed by the calibration curve.

RESULTS

Incidence rate of EAD in the training set and validation cohort were 55.91% (104/199) and 54.76% (23/42), respectively. In the training set, according to the results of univariable and multivariable analysis, 5 independent risk factors including donor gender, donor serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase level, donor serum urea level, donor comorbidities (respiratory, cardiac, and renal dysfunction), and recipient Model for End-stage Liver Disease score were identified and assembled into the nomogram. The AUC of internal validation using bootstrap resampling and prospective validation using the external cohort of 42 patients was 0.74 and 0.60, respectively. The calibration curves for probability of EAD showed acceptable agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observation. According to the score table, the probability of EAD was under 30% when the total point tally was under 72. But when the total was up to 139, the risk of EAD increased to 60%.

CONCLUSION

We've established and validated a nomogram that can provide individual prediction of EAD for liver transplant recipients. The practical prognostic model may help clinicians to qualify the liver graft accurately, making a more reasonable allocation of organs.

Predictive model and risk factors associated with a revised definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is a well-defined clinical syndrome that reflects overall graft function within the first week after transplant. The aim of this study was to further refine the definition for EAD.

METHOD

In this study, 1124 patients were included for analysis. Logistic regression was performed to identify markers of liver injury associated with 6-month patient and graft failure.

RESULTS

Recursive partitioning identified cut-points for ALT/AST > 3000/6000 IU/dL observed within first week, with bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL and INR ≥ 1.6 on postoperative day 7 for the revised EAD model. The incidence of updated EAD was 15% (164/1124). Multivariable analysis identified eight risk factors associated with EAD: % macrosteatosis, donor location, donor weight, nonheart beating donors, type of organ transplanted, recipient-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, severity of postreperfusion syndrome, and the amount of transfused fresh frozen plasma. In the presence of EAD, the incidence of post-transplant renal replacement therapy and dialysis dependence increases. There was a significant association of the presence of EAD with 6-month mortality (12% vs 3%) and 6-month graft failure (8% vs 1%).

CONCLUSION

Higher AST/ALT level needed as cutoff in comparison with the old EAD definition.

The combination of indocyanine green clearance test and model for end-stage liver disease score predicts early graft outcome after liver transplantation

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and early postoperative complications are two important clinical endpoints when evaluating clinical outcomes of liver transplantation (LT). We developed and validated two ICGR15-MELD models in 87 liver transplant recipients for predicting EAD and early postoperative complications after LT by incorporating the quantitative liver function tests (ICGR15) into the MELD score. Eighty seven consecutive patients who underwent LT were collected and divided into a training cohort (n = 61) and an internal validation cohort (n = 26). For predicting EAD after LT, the area under curve (AUC) for ICGR15-MELD score was 0.876, with a sensitivity of 92.0% and a specificity of 75.0%, which is better than MELD score or ICGR15 alone. The recipients with a ICGR15-MELD score ≥0.243 have a higher incidence of EAD than those with a ICGR15-MELD score <0.243 (P <0.001). For predicting early postoperative complications, the AUC of ICGR15-MELD score was 0.832, with a sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 71.0%. Those recipients with an ICGR15-MELD score ≥0.098 have a higher incidence of early postoperative complications than those with an ICGR15-MELD score <0.098 (P < 0.001). Finally, application of the two ICGR15-MELD models in the validation cohort still gave good accuracy (AUC, 0.835 and 0.826, respectively) in predicting EAD and early postoperative complications after LT. The combination of quantitative liver function tests (ICGR15) and the preoperative MELD score is a reliable and effective predictor of EAD and early postoperative complications after LT, which is better than MELD score or ICGR15 alone.

Time spent in hospital after liver transplantation: Effects of primary liver disease and comorbidity

AIM

To explore the effect of primary liver disease and comorbidities on transplant length of stay (TLOS) and LOS in later admissions in the first two years after liver transplantation (LLOS).

METHODS

A linked United Kingdom Liver Transplant Audit - Hospital Episode Statistics database of patients who received a first adult liver transplant between 1997 and 2010 in England was analysed. Patients who died within the first two years were excluded from the primary analysis, but a sensitivity analysis was also performed including all patients. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the impact of primary liver disease and comorbidities on TLOS and LLOS.

RESULTS

In 3772 patients, the mean (95%CI) TLOS was 24.8 (24.2 to 25.5) d, and the mean LLOS was 24.2 (22.9 to 25.5) d. Compared to patients with cancer, we found that the largest difference in TLOS was seen for acute hepatic failure group (6.1 d; 2.8 to 9.4) and the largest increase in LLOS was seen for other liver disease group (14.8 d; 8.1 to 21.5). Patients with cardiovascular disease had 8.5 d (5.7 to 11.3) longer TLOS and 6.0 d (0.2 to 11.9) longer LLOS, compare to those without. Patients with congestive cardiac failure had 7.6 d longer TLOS than those without. Other comorbidities did not significantly increase TLOS nor LLOS.

CONCLUSION

The time patients spent in hospital varied according to their primary liver disease and some comorbidities. Time spent in hospital of patients with cancer was relatively short compared to most other indications. Cardiovascular disease and congestive cardiac failure were the comorbidities with a strong impact on increased LOS.

Early allograft dysfunction after liver transplantation: an intermediate outcome measure for targeted improvements

BACKGROUND

The term early allograft dysfunction (EAD) identifies liver transplant (LT) allografts with initial poor function and portends poor allograft and patient survival. Aims of this study are to use EAD as an intermediate outcome measure in a large single center cohort and identify donor, recipient and peri-operative risk factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 1950 consecutive primary LT, donor, recipient and peri-operative data were collected. EAD was defined by the presence of one or more of the following: total bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL (171 μmol/L) or, INR ≥ 1.6 on day 7, and ALT/AST > 2,000 IU/L within the first 7 days.

RESULTS

The incidence of EAD was 26.5%. 1-, 3-, and 5-year allograft and patient survival for patients who developed EAD were significantly inferior to those who did not (P < 0.01 at all time points). Multivariate analysis demonstrated associations in the development of EAD with recipient pre-operative ventilator status, donation after cardiac death allografts, donor age, allograft size, degree of steatosis, operative time and intra-operative transfusion requirements (all P < 0.01). Patients with EAD had a significantly longer hospitalization at 20.9 ± 38.9 days (median: 9; range: 4-446) compared with 10.7 ± 13.5 days (median: 7; range: 3-231) in patients with no EAD (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest single center experience demonstrating incidence of EAD and identifying factors associated with development of EAD. EAD is a useful intermediate outcome measure for allograft and patient survival. Balancing recipient pretransplant conditions, donor risk factors and intra-operative conditions are necessary for avoiding EAD.

A novel objective method for deceased donor and recipient size matching in liver transplantation

Although the consequences of implantation of a large whole liver graft into a small recipient such as compression and compromise of graft perfusion are well known, no accepted measure to aid in donor-to-recipient size matching exists. Donor liver graft and recipient native liver weights as well as donor and recipient size and amount of ascites were investigated in 1953 patients who underwent liver transplantation using deceased donor grafts between January 2002 and July 2013. We used a previously described formula for liver resections (standardized total liver volume [sTLV] = -794.41 + 1267.28 × body surface area [m(2)]) for calculating sTLV, in the current cohort of deceased liver donors. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and graft survival were the primary outcome measures. The formula for calculating sTLV for liver resections was validated as an accurate predictor of liver volume in the current cohort of deceased liver donors (r(2) = 0.45; P < 0.001). A cutoff point of sTLV ratio ≥ 1.25 was determined through receiver operating characteristic curves, and patients were dichotomized into 2 groups. In the sTLV ratio ≥ 1.25 group, 50% of patients developed EAD compared to 25% of patients in the sTLV ratio < 1.25 group (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients developing graft failure within 90 days was 9.6% in the sTLV ratio ≥ 1.25 group and 5.4% in the sTLV ratio < 1.25 group (P = 0.045). This study validates the use of the sTLV for prediction of actual donor liver weight in the transplant setting. Using this formula, donors with a calculated sTLV size ratio ≥ 1.25 have an increased risk of EAD and therefore caution should be used when that value is exceeded. This adjusted size ratio can be used as a decision aid when considering donor and recipient matching with potential liver organ offers.

Patterns and Outcomes Associated with Patient Migration for Liver Transplantation in the United States

Background

Traveling to seek specialized care such as liver transplantation (LT) is a reality in the United States. Patient migration has been attributed to organ availability. The aims of this study were to delineate patterns of patient migration and outcomes after LT.

Study Design

All deceased donor LT between 2008–2013 were extracted from UNOS data. Migrated patients were defined as those patients who underwent LT at a center in a different UNOS region from the region in which they resided and traveled a distance > 100 miles.

Results

Migrated patients comprised 8.2% of 28,700 LT performed. Efflux and influx of patients were observed in all 11 UNOS regions. Regions 1, 5, 6, and 9 had a net efflux, while regions 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 11 had a net influx of patients. After multivariate adjustment for donor and recipient factors, graft (p = 0.68) and patient survival (p = 0.52) were similar between migrated and non-migrated patients.

Conclusion

A significant number of patients migrated in patterns that could not be explained alone by regional variations in MELD score and wait time. Migration may be a complex interplay of factors including referral patterns, specialized services at centers of excellence and patient preference.

A score model for the continuous grading of early allograft dysfunction severity

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) dramatically influences graft and patient outcomes. A lack of consensus on an EAD definition hinders comparisons of liver transplant outcomes and management of recipients among and within centers. We sought to develop a model for the quantitative assessment of early allograft function [Model for Early Allograft Function Scoring (MEAF)] after transplantation. A retrospective study including 1026 consecutive liver transplants was performed for MEAF score development. Multivariate data analysis was used to select a small number of postoperative variables that adequately describe EAD. Then, the distribution of these variables was mathematically modeled to assign a score for each actual variable value. A model, based on easily obtainable clinical parameters (ie, alanine aminotransferase, international normalized ratio, and bilirubin) and scoring liver function from 0 to 10, was built. The MEAF score showed a significant association with patient and graft survival at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Hepatic steatosis and age for donors; cold/warm ischemia times and postreperfusion syndrome for surgery; and intensive care unit and hospital stays, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Child-Pugh scores, body mass index, and fresh frozen plasma transfusions for recipients were factors associated significantly with EAD. The model was satisfactorily validated by its application to an independent set of 200 patients who underwent liver transplantation at a different center. In conclusion, a model for the quantitative assessment of EAD severity has been developed and validated for the first time. The MEAF provides a more accurate graft function assessment than current categorical classifications and may help clinicians to make early enough decisions on retransplantation benefits. Furthermore, the MEAF score is a predictor of recipient and graft survival. The standardization of the criteria used to define EAD may allow reliable comparisons of recipients' treatments and transplant outcomes among and within centers.