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

The combinatorial effect of age and biological sex on alloimmunity and transplantation outcome

Both age and biological sex affect transplantation outcomes. We have recently shown in a large volume clinical analysis utilizing the SRTR data that graft survival is inferior in young female kidney transplant recipients. In this multi-factorial analysis, older female recipients presented with a trend towards improved transplant outcomes compared to both young female recipients and male recipients of any age. Those data supported by reports of those of others suggest that sex and age impact alloimmune responses both, individually and synergistically. Biological sex and hormone levels change throughout a lifetime with recognized effects on longevity in addition to an impact on the development and course of several disease preconditions. Detailed mechanisms of those sex and age-specific aspects have thus far been studied outside of transplantation. Effects on alloimmunity are largely unknown. Moreover, the combinatorial impact that both, biological sex and age have on transplant outcomes is not understood. Here, we summarize available data that analyze how age in combination with biological sex may shape alloimmune responses and affect transplant outcomes.

A prospective longitudinal assessment of de novo metabolic syndrome after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

De novo metabolic syndrome (MS) is a frequent complication after liver transplantation (LT). The aim of this prospective study is to identify potential risk factors longitudinally associated to post-LT de novo MS. Patients without pre-LT MS who underwent LT between April 2013 and October 2017 were prospectively included. Metabolic variables were collected at LT and at 6, 12, and 24 months post-LT.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (76% male, mean age 53.6±9.5 years). The prevalence of de novo MS was 46%, 43%, and 49% at 6, 12, and 24 months after LT, respectively. Among other MS components, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, hypertension and hypertriglyceridemia significantly increased after LT. Considering the baseline characteristics at the adjusted analysis, alcoholic liver disease (OR 4.17, 95%CI 1.20-14.51; p = .03) and hypertension pre-LT (OR 11.3, 95% CI 1.49-85.46; p = .02) were confirmed as independent risk factors of post-LT de novo MS. In the time-varying analysis, only eGFR (OR .97, 95% CI .97-.98; p < .0001) was found associated with post-LT de novo MS.

CONCLUSIONS

De novo MS frequently occurs shortly after LT, affecting nearly half of patients at 24 months post-LT. Lifestyle modifications should be recommended starting early post-LT, particularly for patients with established risk factors.

Quantifying the Effect of Transplanting Older Donor Livers Into Younger Recipients: The Need for Donor-recipient Age Matching

BACKGROUND

Increasing recipient and donor age are independently associated with survival after liver transplantation (LT). Whether donor age differentially impacts post-LT outcomes based on recipient age is unknown.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data. All adult deceased-donor, single organ, primary LTs from 2002 to 2015 were included. Donor and recipient age were categorized as younger than 40 years, 40 to 59 years, and 60 years or older. Mixed-effects survival analysis evaluated the risk of graft failure and death according to the interaction of donor and recipient age categories.

RESULTS

Of 63 628 LTs, 6.6% were in recipients younger than 40 years, of which 51.4% used an age-matched donor younger than 40 years. There was a significant among-center variability unrelated to United Network for Organ Sharing region in the use of older organs in young recipients, ranging from 0% to 25% or greater (overall center median, 9.7%; interquartile range, 5.4-16.5%). There was a significant interaction between donor and recipient age (P < 0.05) such that the impact of older donor age was more pronounced in younger recipients. Transplanting livers from donors aged 40 to 59 years and 60 years or older was associated with worse graft survival in recipients younger than 40 years, but there was no difference based on donor age in recipients 60 years or older.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a differential impact of using older donors in younger recipients than that in older recipients. Given their longer expected post-LT survival and the ethical imperative to maximize utilization of the scarce resource of transplantable livers, efforts should be made to allocate the highest-quality organs to those most likely to derive lasting benefit.

Age Matching of Elderly Liver Grafts With Elderly Recipients Does Not Have a Synergistic Effect on Long-term Outcomes When Both Are Carefully Selected

BACKGROUND

Older donors and recipients are increasingly considered for liver transplantation. Both donor and recipient age have a negative impact on outcomes. Large registry analyses show that older donors are frequently matched to older recipients. Whether age-related risks accumulate in a synergic negative effect on outcomes because of donor-recipient age matching is poorly understood.

METHODS

We investigated the impact of donor-recipient age interaction on patient and death-censored graft survival in multivariate Cox regressions in 849 transplants (January 2000 to December 2015).

RESULTS

Donors 70 years or older did not affect long-term patient or graft survival. Recipient age independently increased the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.05, P < 0.0001), but donor-recipient age interaction was noninfluential. The negative impact of recipient age on patient survival was significant as early as 6 months after transplantation (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; P = 0.00008). The adjusted risk of death was significant for patients aged 60 to 69 years (HR, 1.995; 95% CI, 1.40-2.85; P < 0.0001) and 70 years or older (HR, 2.001; 95% CI, 1.10-2.66; P = 0.04). In contrast, the risk of graft loss was not influenced by recipient age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.996-1.04; P = 0.11) or age interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Older livers can be safely used in older recipients without jeopardizing graft and patient survival if other risk factors are minimized.

Outcome after liver transplantation in elderly recipients (>65 years) - A single-center retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) in elderly recipients is controversially discussed in the literature with only little data on long-term outcome available. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficiency of LT in elderly recipients (>65 years).

METHODS

Between 1989-2016, 139 patients >65 years-old were listed for liver transplantation, and 76 (55%) were transplanted. Patient outcome and characteristics were evaluated separately for the time period before (1989-2004) and after (2005-2016) MELD-implementation. Post-transplant outcome was compared between the elderly cohort and LT-recipients aged 18-65 years (n = 1395).

RESULTS

Overall survival of patients >65 years was better in the MELD-era compared to the earlier period (1- and 5-year-survival: 73%, 60% vs. 69%, 37%, respectively; p = 0.055). The main differences between the two groups included higher recipient age (p = 0.001) and BMI (p = 0.001), higher donor age (p < 0.001), less need of intraoperative red blood cells (p = 0.008) and a lower number of postoperative rejections (p = 0.03) after 2004. Comparing the overall survival of patients transplanted in the MELD-era aged 18-65 years vs. >65 years displayed comparable 1- and 5 year-survival rates (81%, 68% vs. 73% and 60%, respectively, p = 0.558).

CONCLUSION

In the modern era, outcome of patients receiving LT with >65 years is comparable to <65 year-old patients. After careful evaluation, patients >65 years old should be considered for LT.

Risk factors for development of surgical site infections among liver transplantation recipients: An integrative literature review

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is an important complication in the postoperative period of recipients of liver transplantation. The purpose of this integrative literature review is to summarize the knowledge available about the risk factors contributing to the development SSI among adults undergoing liver transplantation.

METHODS

We reviewed the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online/PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, and Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen articles were identified and the final sample of 9 articles was analyzed in full length. The SSI rate found in the investigations ranged between 9.6% and 35.5%. Risk factors for SSI were grouped into categories related to the preoperative period, such as Model for End-Stage Renal Disease score > 35 and ventilated support on day of transplant; to the intraoperative period activity, such as transfusion of packed red blood cells, extended surgical time, hyperglycemia >200 mg/dL, use of vasopressor drugs, and ascites flow >1 L; and to the donor/recipient relationship, such as age differences >10 years, ratio of donor liver mass to recipient body mass < 0.01. Additionally, centers that annually perform <50 transplants appear to have higher rates of SSI.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have addressed the subject of SSI in relation to liver transplantation in the scientific literature. Risk factors for SSI in patients who underwent liver transplantation vary between institutions.

Advances in liver transplantation allocation systems

With the growing number of patients in need of liver transplantation, there is a need for adopting new and modifying existing allocation policies that prioritize patients for liver transplantation. Policy should ensure fair allocation that is reproducible and strongly predictive of best pre and post transplant outcomes while taking into account the natural history of the potential recipients liver disease and its complications. There is wide acceptance for allocation policies based on urgency in which the sickest patients on the waiting list with the highest risk of mortality receive priority. Model for end-stage liver disease and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scoring system, the two most universally applicable systems are used in urgency-based prioritization. However, other factors must be considered to achieve optimal allocation. Factors affecting pre-transplant patient survival and the quality of the donor organ also affect outcome. The optimal system should have allocation prioritization that accounts for both urgency and transplant outcome. We reviewed past and current liver allocation systems with the aim of generating further discussion about improvement of current policies.

Impact of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary neoplasm of the liver and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Liver transplantation (LT) has become one of the best curative therapeutic options for patients with HCC, although tumor recurrence after LT is a major and unaddressed cause of mortality. Furthermore, the factors that are associated with recurrence are not fully understood, and most previous studies have focused on the biological properties of HCC, such as the number and size of the HCC nodules, the degree of differentiation, the presence of hepatic vascular invasion, elevated serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein, and the tumor stage outside of the Milan criteria. Thus, little attention has been given to factors that are not directly related to HCC (i.e., "non-oncological factors"), which have emerged as predictors of tumor recurrence. This review was performed to assess the effects of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after LT. The identification of these factors may provide new research directions and clinical strategies for the prophylaxis and surveillance of tumor recurrence after LT, which can help reduce recurrence and improve patient survival.

Liver transplantation in the Nordic countries - An intention to treat and post-transplant analysis from The Nordic Liver Transplant Registry 1982-2013

AIM AND BACKGROUND

The Nordic Liver Transplant Registry (NLTR) accounts for all liver transplants performed in the Nordic countries since the start of the transplant program in 1982. Due to short waiting times, donor liver allocation has been made without considerations of the model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. We aimed to summarize key outcome measures and developments for the activity up to December 2013.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The registry is integrated with the operational waiting-list and liver allocation system of Scandiatransplant (www.scandiatransplant.org) and accounted at the end of 2013 for 6019 patients out of whom 5198 were transplanted. Data for recipient and donor characteristics and relevant end-points retransplantation and death are manually curated on an annual basis to allow for statistical analysis and the annual report.

RESULTS

Primary sclerosing cholangitis, acute hepatic failure, alcoholic liver disease, primary biliary cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma are the five most frequent diagnoses (accounting for 15.3%, 10.8%, 10.6%, 9.3% and 9.0% of all transplants, respectively). Median waiting time for non-urgent liver transplantation during the last 10-year period was 39 days. Outcome has improved over time, and for patients transplanted during 2004-2013, overall one-, five- and 10-year survival rates were 91%, 80% and 71%, respectively. In an intention-to-treat analysis, corresponding numbers during the same time period were 87%, 75% and 66%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The liver transplant program in the Nordic countries provides comparable outcomes to programs with a MELD-based donor liver allocation system. Unique features comprise the diagnostic spectrum, waiting times and the availability of an integrated waiting list and transplant registry (NLTR).