Utilization of extended donor criteria liver allograft: Is the elevated risk of failure independent of the model for end-stage liver disease score of the recipient?

Declined Organs for Liver Transplantation: A Right Decision or a Missed Opportunity for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the only promising treatment for end-stage liver disease and patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, too many organs are rejected for transplantation.

METHODS

We analyzed the factors involved in organ allocation in our transplant center and reviewed all livers that were declined for transplantation. Reasons for declining organs for transplantation were categorized as major extended donor criteria (maEDC), size mismatch and vascular problems, medical reasons and risk of disease transmission, and other reasons. The fate of the declined organs was analyzed.

RESULTS

1086 declined organs were offered 1200 times. A total of 31% of the livers were declined because of maEDC, 35.5% because of size mismatch and vascular problems, 15.8% because of medical reasons and risk of disease transmission, and 20.7% because of other reasons. A total of 40% of the declined organs were allocated and transplanted. A total of 50% of the organs were completely discarded, and significantly more of these grafts had maEDC than grafts that were eventually allocated (37.5% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most organs were declined because of poor organ quality. Donor-recipient matching at time of allocation and organ preservation must be improved by allocating maEDC grafts using individualized algorithms that avoid high-risk donor-recipient combinations and unnecessary organ declination.

Early Allograft Dysfunction After Liver Transplantation With Donation After Circulatory Death and Brain Death Grafts: Does the Donor Type Matter?

Background.

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after liver transplantation has been associated with long-term reduced graft and patient survival.

Methods.

In this single-center cohort study, we aimed to compare incidence, risk factors, and outcomes in liver transplant recipients who developed EAD. Patients who received donation after circulatory death (DCD) or donation after brain death (DBD) grafts between January 2007 and December 2017 were included. EAD was defined as bilirubin of ≥10 mg/dL (171 μmol/L) or an international normalized ratio of ≥1.6 on postoperative day 7 or transaminases >2000 U\L in the first-week posttransplantation as previously described.

Results.

In our cohort of 1068 patients, incidence of EAD was 44%. EAD occurred more frequently in the DCD versus DBD group (71% versus 41%, P < 0.01). Overall, recipients who developed EAD showed a significantly lower graft and patient survival at 1, 3, and 5 y after transplantation (all P < 0.05). This was also the case for recipients of DBD grafts. However, for recipients of DCD grafts, patient and graft survival were not affected by the presence of EAD. For recipients of DBD grafts, donor age, body mass index (BMI) and gender, recipient BMI and model for end-stage liver disease score and warm and cold ischemia time were associated with EAD. For DCD recipients, donor BMI and cold ischemia time were associated with EAD.

Conclusions.

In our cohort study, EAD resulted in reduced long-term patient and graft survival only for DBD recipients but not for DCD recipients. Predictive markers for EAD were dependent on the donor type.

The Utility of Extended Criteria Donor Livers in High Acuity Liver Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Although the use of extended criteria donor (ECD) liver allografts has gained momentum as a potential method by which to expand the donor pool, their use largely remains relegated to low acuity liver transplant (LT) recipients. Thus, we sought to examine whether such grafts also have utility in high acuity (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] ≥ 35) recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Extended criteria donors were defined as donor age > 60 years, hepatitis C virus positive donor, split livers, livers with cold ischemia time > 12 h, donor after cardiac death livers, or having macrosteatosis > 30%. Outcomes were compared between standard liver (SL) and ECD grafts in recipients with MELD ≥ 35.

RESULTS

Of 225 patients, 46 (20.4%) received an ECD liver and 179 (79.6%) received a SL. Extended criteria donor graft recipients had significantly higher levels of post-LT maximal transaminases and rate of early allograft dysfunction. Nonetheless, high acuity ECD graft recipients had similar short- and long-term patient survival compared to SL recipients, with 1-,3-, and 5-year survivals of 86.9%, 82.3%, 79.3% and 86.9%, 80.5%, and 75.4%, respectively (P = .674). There were also no significant differences in graft survival or rejection-free survival between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The lack of inferior patient/graft survival among high acuity ECD graft recipients suggests that ECD livers present a viable method by which to expand the donor pool for this group of patients.

Prognostic role of the Donor Risk Index, the Eurotransplant Donor Risk Index, and the Balance of Risk score on graft loss after liver transplantation

This study aimed to identify cutoff values for donor risk index (DRI), Eurotransplant (ET)-DRI, and balance of risk (BAR) scores that predict the risk of liver graft loss. MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched systematically and unrestrictedly. Graft loss odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were assessed by meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel tests with a random-effects model. Cutoff values for predicting graft loss at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years were analyzed for each of the scores. Measures of calibration and discrimination used in studies validating the DRI and the ET-DRI were summarized. DRI ≥ 1.4 (six studies, n = 35 580 patients) and ET-DRI ≥ 1.4 (four studies, n = 11 666 patients) were associated with the highest risk of graft loss at all time points. BAR > 18 was associated with the highest risk of 3-month and 1-year graft loss (n = 6499 patients). A DRI cutoff of 1.8 and an ET-DRI cutoff of 1.7 were estimated using a summary receiver operator characteristic curve, but the sensitivity and specificity of these cutoff values were low. A DRI and ET-DRI score ≥ 1.4 and a BAR score > 18 have a negative influence on graft survival, but these cutoff values are not well suited for predicting graft loss.

A preoperative nomogram predicts prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation: a multicenter retrospective study

Background

Although criteria for liver transplantation, such as the Milan criteria and Hangzhou experiences, have become popular, criteria to guide adjuvant therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation are lacking.

Methods

We collected data from all consecutive patients from 2012 to 2019 at three liver transplantation centers in China retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to analyze preoperative parameters, such as demographic and clinical data. Using data obtained in our center, calibration curves and the concordance Harrell’s C-indices were used to establish the final model. The validation cohort comprised the patients from the other centers.

Results

Data from 233 patients were used to construct the nomogram. The validation cohort comprised 36 patients. Independent predictors of overall survival (OS) were identified as HbeAg positive (P = 0.044), blood-type compatibility unmatched (P = 0.034), liver transplantation criteria (P = 0.003), and high MELD score (P = 0.037). For the validation cohort, to predict OS, the C-index of the nomogram was 0.874. Based on the model, patients could be assigned into low-risk (≥ 50%), intermediate-risk (30–50%), and high-risk (≤ 30%) groups to guide adjuvant therapy after surgery and to facilitate personalized management.

Conclusions

The OS in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation could be accurately predicted using the developed nomogram.

Differential Impact of Extended Criteria Donors After Brain Death or Circulatory Death in Adult Liver Transplantation

Using grafts from extended criteria donors (ECDs) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors is a strategy to address organ shortage in liver transplantation (LT). We studied the characteristics and outcomes of ECD and DCD grafts. We retrospectively studied consecutive adults who underwent deceased donor LT between 2006 and 2019. ECD was defined using modified Eurotransplant criteria. Our primary outcomes were graft and patient survival. A total of 798 grafts were used for LT, of which 93.1% were donation after brain death (DBD; 59.9% were also ECD) and 6.9% were DCD grafts (49.1% were also ECD). Among DBD graft recipients, donors having >33% liver steatosis or 3 ECD criteria resulted in poorer graft survival. Otherwise ECD graft recipients had similar graft and patient survival compared with non-ECD graft recipients. DCD graft recipients also had similar patient survival compared with DBD recipients. However, DCD grafts from an ECD appeared to have worse outcomes. DCD graft recipients experienced higher rates of early allograft dysfunction (50.9% versus 24.7%; P < 0.001) and ischemic biliopathy (16.4% versus 1.5%; P < 0.001) compared with DBD graft recipients. Use of DBD grafts from ECDs did not impact outcomes unless there was significant donor steatosis or 3 Eurotransplant criteria were met. DCD graft recipients have similar patient survival compared with DBD graft recipients as long as the donor was not an ECD. We recommend that DBD donors with 3 or more ECD features or >33% steatosis and DCD donors with any ECD features be used with caution in adult LT.

Revascularization Time in Liver Transplantation: Independent Prediction of Inferior Short- and Long-term Outcomes by Prolonged Graft Implantation

BACKGROUND

Strategies for successful transplantation are much needed in the era of organ shortage, and there has been a resurgence of interest on the impact of revascularization time (RT) on outcomes in liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

All primary LT performed in Birmingham between 2009 and 2014 (n = 678) with portal reperfusion first were stratified according to RT (<44 minutes vs ≥44 minutes) and graft quality (standard liver graft [SLG], Donor Risk Index < 2.3 vs marginal liver graft [MLG], Donor Risk Index ≥ 2.3).

RESULTS

Revascularization time of 44 minutes or longer resulted in significantly greater incidence of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) (29% vs 47%, P < 0.001), posttransplant acute kidney injury (AKI) (39% vs 60%, P < 0.001), and new-onset AKI (37% vs 56%, P < 0.001), along with poor long-term outcome (3-year graft survival 92% vs 83%, P = 0.001; 3-year patient survival 87% vs 79%, P = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, RT ≥ 44 was a significant independent predictor of EAD, renal dysfunction, and overall graft survival, but not patient survival. The cumulative effect of prolonged revascularization in marginal grafts (MLG) resulted in the worst transplant outcome compared with all other groups, which could be mitigated by rapid revascularization (SLG, SLG, MLG vs MLG; EAD 24%, 39%, 39% vs 69%; AKI 32%, 46%, 51% vs 70%; 3-year graft survival 94%, 87%, 88% vs 70%, respectively; each P < 0.001). Factors associated with lack of abdominal space, larger grafts, and surgical skills were predictive of RT ≥ 44.

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter graft revascularization is a protective factor in LT, particularly in the setting of graft marginality. Careful graft-recipient matching and emphasis on surgical expertise may aid in achieving better outcomes in LT.

Age and liver transplantation

The average age of liver transplant donors and recipients has increased over the years. Independent of the cause of liver disease, older candidates have more comorbidities, higher waitlist mortality and higher post-transplant mortality than younger patients. However, transplant benefit may be similar in older and younger recipients, provided older recipients are carefully selected. The cohort of elderly patients transplanted decades ago is also increasingly raising issues concerning long-term exposure to immunosuppression and aging of the transplanted liver. Excellent results can be achieved with elderly donors and there is virtually no upper age limit for donors after brain death liver transplantation. The issue is how to optimise selection, procurement and matching to ensure good results with elderly donors. The impact of old donor age is more pronounced in younger recipients and patients with a high model for end-stage liver disease score. Age matching between the donor and the recipient should be incorporated into allocation policies with a multistep approach. However, age matching may vary depending on the objectives of different allocation policies. In addition, age matching must be revisited in the era of direct-acting antivirals. More restrictive limits have been adopted in donation after circulatory death. Perfusion machines which are currently under investigation may help expand these limits. In living donor liver transplantation, donor age limit is essentially guided by morbidity related to procurement. In this review we summarise changing trends in recipient and donor age. We discuss the implications of older age donors and recipients. We also consider different options for age matching in liver transplantation that could improve outcomes.

Factors Associated with Survival of Patients With Severe Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure Before and After Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver transplantation for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) with 3 or more failing organs (ACLF-3) is controversial. We compared liver waitlist mortality or removal according to model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score vs ACLF category. We also studied factors associated with reduced odds of survival for 1 year after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF-3.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) from 2005 through 2016. We identified patients who were on the waitlist (100,594) and those who received liver transplants (50,552). Patients with ACLF were identified based on the European Association for the Study of the Liver-chronic liver failure criteria. Outcomes were evaluated with competing risks regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Patients with ACLF-3 were more likely to die or be removed from the waitlist, regardless of MELD-sodium (MELD-Na) score, compared with the other ACLF groups; the proportion was greatest for patients with an ACLF-3 score and MELD-Na score below 25 (43.8% at 28 days). Mechanical ventilation at liver transplantation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-1.84), donor risk index above 1.7 (HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.09-1.35), and liver transplantation within 30 days of listing (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81-0.98) were independently associated with survival for 1 year after liver transplantation CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from the UNOS registry, we found high mortality among patients with ACLF-3 on the liver transplant waitlist, even among those with lower MELD-Na scores. So, certain patients with ACLF-3 have poor outcomes regardless of MELD-Na score. Liver transplantation increases odds of survival for these patients, particularly if performed within 30 days of placement on the waitlist. Mechanical ventilation at liver transplantation and use of marginal organs were associated with increased risk of death.

The impact of major extended donor criteria on graft failure and patient mortality after liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Numerous extended donor criteria (EDC) have been identified in liver transplantation (LT), but different EDC have different impacts on graft and patient survival. This study aimed to identify major EDC (maEDC) that were best able to predict the outcome after LT and to examine the plausibility of an allocation algorithm based on these criteria.

METHODS

All consecutive LTs between 12/2006 and 03/2014 were included (n = 611). We analyzed the following EDC: donor age > 65 years, body mass index > 30, malignancy and drug abuse history, intensive care unit stay/ventilation > 7 days, aminotransferases > 3 times normal, serum bilirubin > 3 mg/dL, serum Na⁺ > 165 mmol/L, positive hepatitis serology, biopsy-proven macrovesicular steatosis (BPS) > 40%, and cold ischemia time (CIT) > 14 h. We analyzed hazard risk ratios of graft failure for each EDC and evaluated primary non-function (PNF). In addition, we analyzed 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival. We established low- and high-risk graft (maEDC 0 vs. ≥ 1) and recipient (labMELD < 20 vs. ≥ 20) groups and compared the post-LT outcomes between these groups.

RESULTS

BPS > 40%, donor age > 65 years, and CIT > 14 h (all p < 0.05) were independent predictors of graft failure and patient mortality and increased PNF, 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, and 3-year graft failure rates. Three-year graft and patient survival decreased in recipients of ≥ 1 maEDC grafts (all p < 0.05) and LT of high-risk grafts into high-risk recipients yielded worse outcomes compared with other groups.

CONCLUSION

Donor age > 65 years, BPS > 40%, and CIT > 14 h are major EDC that decrease short and 3-year graft survival, and 3-year patient survival. An allocation algorithm based on maEDC and labMELD is therefore plausible.

Validation of artificial neural networks as a methodology for donor-recipient matching for liver transplantation

In 2014, we reported a model for donor-recipient (D-R) matching in liver transplantation (LT) based on artificial neural networks (ANNs) from a Spanish multicenter study (Model for Allocation of Donor and Recipient in España [MADR-E]). The aim is to test the ANN-based methodology in a different European health care system in order to validate it. An ANN model was designed using a cohort of patients from King's College Hospital (KCH; n = 822). The ANN was trained and tested using KCH pairs for both 3- and 12-month survival models. End points were probability of graft survival (correct classification rate [CCR]) and nonsurvival (minimum sensitivity [MS]). The final model is a rule-based system for facilitating the decision about the most appropriate D-R matching. Models designed for KCH had excellent prediction capabilities for both 3 months (CCR-area under the curve [AUC] = 0.94; MS-AUC = 0.94) and 12 months (CCR-AUC = 0.78; MS-AUC = 0.82), almost 15% higher than the best obtained by other known scores such as Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and balance of risk. Moreover, these results improve the previously reported ones in the multicentric MADR-E database. In conclusion, the use of ANN for D-R matching in LT in other health care systems achieved excellent prediction capabilities supporting the validation of these tools. It should be considered as the most advanced, objective, and useful tool to date for the management of waiting lists. Liver Transplantation 24 192-203 2018 AASLD.

Temporary Intraoperative Porto-Caval Shunts in Piggy-Back Liver Transplantation Reduce Intraoperative Blood Loss and Improve Postoperative Transaminases and Renal Function: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The value of temporary intraoperative porto-caval shunts (TPCS) in cava-sparing liver transplantation is discussed controversially. Aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the impact of temporary intraoperative porto-caval shunts on liver injury, primary non-function, time of surgery, transfusion of blood products and length of hospital stay in cava-sparing liver transplantation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO retrieved a total of 909 articles, of which six articles were included. The combined effect size and 95 % confidence interval were calculated for each outcome by applying the inverse variance weighting method. Tests for heterogeneity (I ²) were also utilized.

RESULTS

Usage of a TPCS was associated with significantly decreased AST values, significantly fewer transfusions of packed red blood cells and improved postoperative renal function. There were no statistically significant differences in primary graft non-function, length of hospital stay or duration of surgery.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found that temporary intraoperative porto-caval shunts in cava-sparing liver transplantation reduce blood loss as well as hepatic injury and enhance postoperative renal function without prolonging operative time. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of temporary intraoperative porto-caval shunts are needed to confirm these findings.

Transplant for the very sick: No limitations in donor quality?

When it comes to maximizing allograft function, the recipient is just as important as the liver graft itself. Whereas the “healthiest” of liver transplant candidates are likely to gain significant benefit from a liver graft of any quality, the sickest of candidates may still die despite transplantation with even an ideal liver. However, the very sick patients are precisely the ones who have the greatest need for liver transplantation—with any liver, regardless of quality—because they are most vulnerable to pretransplant death without one. How does one balance the urgent need for liver transplantation with optimization of the allograft’s function and utility for the very sick patient?

High Center Volume Does Not Mitigate Risk Associated with Using High Donor Risk Organs in Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

High-risk donor allografts increase access to liver transplant, but potentially reduce patient and graft survival.

AIMS

It is unclear whether the risk associated with using marginal donor livers is mitigated by increasing center experience.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for adult first-time liver transplant recipients between 2/2002 and 12/2015. High donor risk was defined as donor risk index >1.9, and 1-year patient and graft survival were compared according to donor risk index in small and large centers. Multivariable Cox regression estimated the hazard ratio (HR) associated with using high-risk donor organs, according to a continuous measure of annual center volume.

RESULTS

The analysis included 51,770 patients. In 67 small and 67 large centers, high donor risk index predicted increased mortality (p = 0.001). In multivariable analysis, high-donor risk index allografts predicted greater mortality hazard at centers performing 20 liver transplants per year (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.22, 1.49; p < 0.001) and, similarly, at centers performing 70 per year (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.26, 1.43; p < 0.001). The interaction between high donor risk index and center volume was not statistically significant (p = 0.747), confirming that the risk associated with using marginal donor livers was comparable between smaller and larger centers. Results were consistent when examining graft loss.

CONCLUSION

At both small and large centers, high-risk donor allografts were associated with reduced patient and graft survival after liver transplant. Specific strategies to mitigate the risk of liver transplant involving high-risk donors are needed, in addition to accumulation of center expertise.

The donor risk index: A decade of experience

In 2006, derivation of the donor risk index (DRI) highlighted the importance of donor factors for successful liver transplantation. Over the last decade, the DRI has served as a useful metric of donor quality and has enhanced our understanding of donor factors and their impact upon recipients with hepatitis C virus, those with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and individuals undergoing retransplantation. DRI has provided the transplant community with a common language for describing donor organ characteristics and has served as the foundation for several tools for organ risk assessment. It is a useful tool in assessing the interactions of donor factors with recipient factors and their impact on posttransplant outcomes. However, limitations of statistical modeling, choice of donor factors, exclusion of unaccounted donor and geographic factors, and the changing face of the liver transplant recipient have tempered its widespread use. In addition, the DRI was derived from data before the MELD era but is currently being applied to expand the donor pool while concurrently meeting the demands of a dynamic allocation system. A decade after its introduction, DRI remains relevant but may benefit from being updated to provide guidance in the use of extended criteria donors by accounting for the impact of geography and unmeasured donor characteristics. DRI could be better adapted for recipients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease by examining and including recipient factors unique to this population. Liver Transplantation 23 1216-1225 2017 AASLD.

Benefits of temporary portocaval shunt during orthotopic liver transplantation with vena cava preservation: A propensity score analysis

During orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), clamping of the portal vein induces splanchnic venous congestion and accumulation of noxious compounds. These adverse effects could increase ischemia/reperfusion injury and subsequently the risk of graft dysfunction, especially for grafts harvested from extended criteria donors (ECDs). Temporary portocaval shunt (TPCS) could prevent these complications. Between 2002 and 2013, all OLTs performed in our center were retrospectively analyzed and a propensity score matching analysis was used to compare the effect of TPCS in 686 patients (343 in each group). Patients in the TPCS group required fewer intraoperative transfusions (median number of packed red blood cells-5 versus 6; P = 0.02; median number of fresh frozen plasma-5 versus 6; P = 0.02); had improvement of postoperative biological parameters (prothrombin time, Factor V, international normalized ratio, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyltransferase levels); and showed significant reduction of biliary complications (4.7% versus 10.2%; P = 0.006). Survival analysis revealed that TPCS improved 3-month graft survival (94.2% versus 88.6%; P = 0.01) as well as longterm survival of elderly (ie, age > 70 years) donor grafts (P = 0.02). In conclusion, the use of TPCS should be recommended especially when considering an ECD graft. Liver Transplantation 23 174-183 2017 AASLD.

Effects of the Share 35 Rule on Waitlist and Liver Transplantation Outcomes for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Introduction

Several studies have investigated the effects following the implementation of the “Share 35” policy; however none have investigated what effect this policy change has had on waitlist and liver transplantation (LT) outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).

Methods

Data were obtained from the UNOS database and a comparison of the 2 years post-Share 35 with data from the 2 years pre-Share 35 was performed.

Results

In the pre-Share35 era, 23% of LT were performed for HCC exceptions compared to 22% of LT in the post-Share35 era (p = 0.21). No difference in wait-time for HCC patients was seen in any of the UNOS regions between the 2 eras. Competing risk analysis demonstrated that HCC candidates in post-Share 35 era were more likely to die or be delisted for “too sick” while waiting (7.2% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.005) within 15 months. A higher proportion of ECD (p<0.001) and DCD (p<0.001) livers were used for patients transplanted for HCC, while lower DRI organs were used for those patients transplanted with a MELD≥35 between the 2 eras (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

No significant change to wait-time for patients listed for HCC was seen following implementation of “Share 35”. Transplant program behavior has changed resulting use of higher proportion of ECD and DCD liver grafts for patients with HCC. A higher rate of wait list mortality was observed in patients with HCC in the post-Share 35 era.

Predictive factors of short term outcome after liver transplantation: A review

Liver transplantation represents a fundamental therapeutic solution to end-stage liver disease. The need for liver allografts has extended the set of criteria for organ acceptability, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Little is known about the early postoperative parameters that can be used as valid predictive indices for early graft function, retransplantation or surgical reintervention, secondary complications, long intensive care unit stay or death. In this review, we present state-of-the-art knowledge regarding the early post-transplantation tests and scores that can be applied during the first postoperative week to predict liver allograft function and patient outcome, thereby guiding the therapeutic and surgical decisions of the medical staff. Post-transplant clinical and biochemical assessment of patients through laboratory tests (platelet count, transaminase and bilirubin levels, INR, factor V, lactates, and Insulin Growth Factor 1) and scores (model for end-stage liver disease, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation, sequential organ failure assessment and model of early allograft function) have been reported to have good performance, but they only allow late evaluation of patient status and graft function, requiring days to be quantified. The indocyanine green plasma disappearance rate has long been used as a liver function assessment technique and has produced interesting, although not univocal, results when performed between the 1^th and the 5^th day after transplantation. The liver maximal function capacity test is a promising method of metabolic liver activity assessment, but its use is limited by economic cost and extrahepatic factors. To date, a consensual definition of early allograft dysfunction and the integration and validation of the above-mentioned techniques, through the development of numerically consistent multicentric prospective randomised trials, are necessary. The medical and surgical management of transplanted patients could be greatly improved by using clinically reliable tools to predict early graft function.

Overextended Criteria Donors: Experience of an Italian Transplantation Center

The increasing gap between the number of patients who could benefit from liver transplantation and the number of available donors has fueled efforts to maximize the donor pool using marginal grafts that usually were discarded for transplantation. This study included data of all patients who received decreased donor liver grafts between January 2004 and January 2013 (n = 218) with the use of a prospectively collected database. Patients with acute liver failure, retransplantation, pediatric transplantation, and split liver transplantation were excluded. Donors were classified as standard donor (SD), extended criteria donor (ECD), and overextended criteria donor (OECD). The primary endpoints of the study were early allograft primary dysfunction (PDF), primary nonfunction (PNF), and patient survival (PS), whereas incidence of major postoperative complications was the secondary endpoint. In our series we demonstrated that OECD have similar outcome in terms of survival and incidence of complication after liver transplantation as ideal grafts.

Living donor liver transplantation using a graft with periportal fibrosis

A 57-year-old woman with familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) was scheduled to undergo living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), but the operation was cancelled because the only potential donor had chronic alcohol-related liver disease. One year later, FAP-related neurological symptoms progressed rapidly, and emergency LDLT was planned. The donor's hepatic function had returned to normal range after 1 year of abstinence. The left liver graft volume was equivalent to 37.7% of the standard liver volume (SLV) of the recipient. However, a liver biopsy revealed mild fibrosis (score, F1). LDLT was successfully performed without any complications. The recipient's neurological findings returned to normal. One year after LDLT, the liver graft volume was equivalent to approximately 90% of the SLV, and the fibrosis had improved. LDLT using a graft with a fibrosis score of up to F1 may be an acceptable alternative for recipients with normal hepatic function.

Role of Patient Factors and Practice Patterns in Determining Access to Liver Waitlist

Geographic variability in access to care is a persistent challenge in transplantation. Little is known about how patients with end-stage liver disease are chosen for referral, evaluation and listing. Utilizing death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2002 to 2009, estimated liver demand (ELD) was measured by aggregating annual deaths from liver disease and liver transplants performed in each donor service area (DSA). In DSAs with higher ELD, more patients per capita were listed for transplantation (p < 0.001). In addition, listing rates per ELD varied fivefold across DSAs, with more patients per ELD being transplanted in DSAs with higher listing rates (p < 0.001). After adjusting for liver donor risk index and MELD at transplant, there was no association between listing rate and posttransplant survival (HR 1.002, p = 0.77). In addition, DSAs with lower listing rates were more likely to export organs (p < 0.001) of lower liver donor risk index (p < 0.001). Listing sicker patients was associated with increased access to the waitlist and transplantation and more efficient organ utilization, but had minimal effect on posttransplant outcomes after adjusting for the resulting organ shortage.

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.

Hypothermic machine preservation facilitates successful transplantation of "orphan" extended criteria donor livers

Hypothermic machine preservation (HMP) remains investigational in clinical liver transplantation. It is widely used to preserve kidneys for transplantation with improved results over static cold storage (SCS). At our center, we have used HMP in 31 adults receiving extended criteria donor (ECD) livers declined by the originating United Network for Organ Sharing region ("orphan livers"). These cases were compared to ECD SCS cases in a matched cohort study design. Livers were matched for donor age, recipient age, cold ischemic time, donor risk index and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. HMP was performed for 3-7 h at 4-8 °C using our previously published protocol. Early allograft dysfunction rates were 19% in the HMP group versus 30% in the control group (p = 0.384). One-year patient survival was 84% in the HMP group versus 80% in the SCS group (p = NS). Post hoc analysis revealed significantly less biliary complications in the HMP group versus the SCS group (4 vs. 13, p = 0.016). Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the HMP group (13.64 ± 10.9 vs. 20.14 ± 11.12 days in the SCS group, p = 0.001). HMP provided safe and reliable preservation in orphan livers transplanted at our center.

The evolving use of higher risk grafts is associated with an increased incidence of acute kidney injury after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The growing discrepancy between supply and demand for liver transplantation has necessitated a greater use of higher risk grafts. Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) liver transplant recipients have an increased frequency of acute kidney injury (AKI). We hypothesised that other higher risk grafts might also impact negatively on renal function. Our aim was to examine the effect of the evolving use of higher risk grafts on the incidence of post liver transplant AKI.

METHODS

Single-centre study of 1152 patients undergoing first-single-organ liver transplantation for chronic liver disease 01/2000-12/2011. To assess the impact of the evolution of graft quality over time; donor/graft/recipient variables were compared over three 4-year periods.

RESULTS

Pretransplant recipient renal function improved during follow-up (p<0.001), and the median postoperative day-1 (p<0.001), -2 (p<0.001), and -3 (p<0.001) tacrolimus trough levels fell. The proportion of patients receiving a higher risk graft was 31.8% in 2000-2003, 40.9% in 2004-2007, and 59.1% in 2008-2011 (p<0.001). There was a progressive increase in AKI (2000-2003, OR 1.00; 2004-2007, OR 1.43; 2008-2011, OR 2.40, p<0.001). After adjusting for recipient variables increasing recipient warm ischaemic time (p=0.019), DCD transplantation (p<0.001), donor age ≥60 years (p=0.020), and donor body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2) (p<0.001) were independent predictors of AKI.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing use of higher risk liver grafts is associated with an increased incidence of AKI. These findings support the need for therapies that minimise the hepatic ischaemia-reperfusion injury.

The association of pretransplant ferritin level with waiting list and post-transplant survival. Does ferritin actually predict outcome?

Recent data suggest an association of serum ferritin (SF) with waiting list (WL) and postliver transplant (LT) outcomes. To assess the predictive capacity of SF on pre- and post-LT outcomes, and to identify whether recipient or donor liver siderosis is associated with post-LT survival; a retrospective analysis of 1079 patients assessed for first LT, 2000-2007 was performed. Iron deposition in the liver tissue was assessed using a semi-quantitative grading system. Median age was 54 (18-82) years and 67% were male. Seventeen per cent had hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Median Model for End-stage Liver Disease MELD score was 14 (6-40), ferritin was 174 μg/l (4-4597) with 36.5% had a SF ≥ μg/l. Age (OR = 1.028) and MELD score (OR = 1.158) were independently associated with WL mortality (P < 0.001), whilst SF was not (P = NS). Age (OR = 1.018), HCC (OR = 1.542) and cold ischemia time (CIT) ≥ 10 h (OR = 1.418) were independently associated with post-LT survival (P < 0.05). Explant siderosis grade <2 was seen in 376 (71.7%) patients. Patients with explant siderosis grade ≥ 2 had inferior 12-month post-LT survival (P = 0.030). Presence of graft siderosis (15.8% of patients) was not associated with survival. In conclusion, we found a limited role for SF as a prognostic indicator for pre- or post-transplant survival.

Beyond survival: how well do transplanted livers work? A preliminary comparison of standard-risk, high-risk, and living donor recipients

To help decrease mortality on the liver transplant waitlist, transplant centers are using living donors (LD) and high-risk donors (HRD) in addition to standard-risk donors (SRD). HRD is defined as having a donor risk index score higher than 1.6, which suggests a great risk of graft failure. Recent studies have examined survival rates between HRD and SRD recipients; however, little is known about outcomes other than survival, specifically psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this preliminary, prospective study was to compare post-transplant psychosocial and recovery outcomes between SRD and LD and HRD liver recipients. These outcomes include cognitive functioning, psychological distress, quality of life, and self-reported and objective measures of recovery. Eighty-four patients provided baseline and six-month post-transplant data. There were generally no statistically significant differences at baseline or the six-month follow-up, suggesting that patients receiving HRD livers have similar outcomes to those who receive SRD livers. However, some effect sizes suggest potential advantages for LD recipients compared to SRD recipients. Transplant centers may be more willing to encourage patients to accept HRD or LD livers knowing that they may have comparable outcomes to SRD recipients, which also has implications for the transplant waitlist.

Donor-recipient matching: myths and realities

Liver transplant outcomes keep improving, with refinements of surgical technique, immunosuppression and post-transplant care. However, these excellent results and the limited number of organs available have led to an increasing number of potential recipients with end-stage liver disease worldwide. Deaths on waiting lists have led liver transplant teams maximize every organ offered and used in terms of pre and post-transplant benefit. Donor-recipient (D-R) matching could be defined as the technique to check D-R pairs adequately associated by the presence of the constituents of some patterns from donor and patient variables. D-R matching has been strongly analysed and policies in donor allocation have tried to maximize organ utilization whilst still protecting individual interests. However, D-R matching has been written through trial and error and the development of each new score has been followed by strong discrepancies and controversies. Current allocation systems are based on isolated or combined donor or recipient characteristics. This review intends to analyze current knowledge about D-R matching methods, focusing on three main categories: patient-based policies, donor-based policies and combined donor-recipient systems. All of them lay on three mainstays that support three different concepts of D-R matching: prioritarianism (favouring the worst-off), utilitarianism (maximising total benefit) and social benefit (cost-effectiveness). All of them, with their pros and cons, offer an exciting controversial topic to be discussed. All of them together define D-R matching today, turning into myth what we considered a reality in the past.

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.

Development of organ-specific donor risk indices

Because of the shortage of deceased donor organs, transplant centers accept organs from marginal deceased donors, including older donors. Organ-specific donor risk indices have been developed to predict graft survival with various combinations of donor and recipient characteristics. Here we review the kidney donor risk index (KDRI) and the liver donor risk index (LDRI) and compare and contrast their strengths, limitations, and potential uses. The KDRI has a potential role in developing new kidney allocation algorithms. The LDRI allows a greater appreciation of the importance of donor factors, particularly for hepatitis C virus-positive recipients; as the donor risk index increases, the rates of allograft and patient survival among these recipients decrease disproportionately. The use of livers with high donor risk indices is associated with increased hospital costs that are independent of recipient risk factors, and the transplantation of livers with high donor risk indices into patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores < 15 is associated with lower allograft survival; the use of the LDRI has limited this practice. Significant regional variations in donor quality, as measured by the LDRI, remain in the United States. We also review other potential indices for liver transplantation, including donor-recipient matching and the retransplant donor risk index. Although substantial progress has been made in developing donor risk indices to objectively assess donor variables that affect transplant outcomes, continued efforts are warranted to improve these indices to enhance organ allocation policies and optimize allograft survival.

Grade of deceased donor liver macrovesicular steatosis impacts graft and recipient outcomes more than the Donor Risk Index

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Donor liver steatosis can impact on liver allograft outcomes. The aim of the present study was to comprehensively report on the impact of type and grade of donor steatosis, as well as donor and recipient factors, including the reported Donor Risk Index (DRI), on liver allograft outcomes.

METHODS

A review of unit data for all adult liver transplant procedures from 2001 to 2007, as well as donor offers. Donor liver biopsies were regraded for steatosis by an experienced histopathologist.

RESULTS

Steatosis was detected in 184/255 (72%) of biopsies, of which 114 (62%) had microvesicular steatosis (MiS; 68 mild, 22 moderate, 24 severe) and 70 (38%) macrovesicular steatosis (MaS; 59 mild, 7 moderate, 4 severe). The majority (66/70, 94%) of biopsies with MaS also contained MiS. Allograft steatosis was associated with increasing donor body mass index (P = 0.000), plus donor male sex (P < 0.05). Primary non function (P = 0.002), early renal failure (P = 0.040), and requirement for retransplantation (P = 0.012) were associated only with severe MaS. Early biliary complications were associated with moderate MaS (P = 0.039). Only severe MaS was significantly associated with inferior allograft survival at 3 months (relative risk = 12.09 [8.75-19.05], P = 0.000) and 1 year (P = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

MiS is a common finding and frequently coexists with MaS on liver allograft biopsy, while isolated MaS is uncommon. Only the presence of moderate to severe MaS is associated with inferior early allograft outcomes. The impact of severe MaS on allograft survival appears greater than other donor factors, including the calculated DRI.

Experience Since MELD Implementation: How Does the New System Deliver?

Because of increasing waiting-list mortality, the MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) allocation system was implemented within most countries of the Eurotransplant area on December 16, 2006. Five years have now passed, and we review in this paper the effects of the MELD-based allocation upon the waiting list for liver transplantation, on peri-operative management and on postoperative outcome. Giving priority to sicker patients on the waiting list has resulted in a significant increase in mean MELD score at the time of organ allocation. Consequently, there has also been a significant reduction in waiting-list mortality. However, in Germany a worsening in postoperative outcome, mainly in the group of high-MELD recipients (≥30 points), has been reported. This paper presents comprehensive results following liver transplantation within the MELD era. Especially for the group of high-risk recipients, risk factors for impaired survival are presented and discussed.

Balancing donor and recipient risk factors in liver transplantation: the value of D-MELD with particular reference to HCV recipients

Donor-recipient match is a matter of debate in liver transplantation. D-MELD (donor age × recipient biochemical model for end-stage liver disease [MELD]) and other factors were analyzed on a national Italian database recording 5946 liver transplants. Primary endpoint was to determine factors predictive of 3-year patient survival. D-MELD cutoff predictive of 5-year patient survival <50% (5yrsPS<50%) was investigated. A prognosis calculator was implemented (http://www.D-MELD.com). Differences among D-MELD deciles allowed their regrouping into three D-MELD classes (A < 338, B 338-1628, C >1628). At 3 years, the odds ratio (OR) for death was 2.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-2.85) in D-MELD class C versus B. The OR was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.24-0.66) in class A versus class B. Other predictors were hepatitis C virus (HCV; OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11-1.81), hepatitis B virus (HBV; OR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.93), retransplant (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.16-2.87) and low-volume center (OR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11-1.99). Cox regressions up to 90 months confirmed results. The hazard ratio was 1.97 (95% CI, 1.59-2.43) for D-MELD class C versus class B and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.29-0.60) for D-MELD class A versus class B. Recipient age, HCV, HBV and retransplant were also significant. The 5yrsPS<50% cutoff was identified only in HCV patients (D-MELD ≥ 1750). The innovative approach offered by D-MELD and covariates is helpful in predicting outcome after liver transplantation, especially in HCV recipients.

Liver transplantation using elderly donors: a risk factor analysis

Survival after liver transplantation is negatively impacted by use of elderly deceased donors, but excluding them would increase waiting times and waiting list mortality. We reviewed our experience with liver transplantation (LT) utilizing livers from deceased donors 65 yr of age and older to identify those factors that impact graft survival. All adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) who underwent primary LT using deceased donor livers from donors aged ≥ 65 yr between February 1995 and November 2003 were included. With multivariate analysis we found four unfavorable characteristics significantly associated with higher post-transplant graft failure rate. These characteristics are hepatitis C as an etiology of liver disease, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score >20, serum glucose level of donor > 200 mg/dL at the time of liver recovery, and skin incision to aortic cross-clamp time > 40 minutes in the donor surgery. The five-yr estimated graft survival rates having 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 unfavorable characteristics were 100%, 82.0%, 81.7%, 39.3%, and 25.0%, respectively (p < 0.05). Our data demonstrated good graft survival can be achieved in LT using elderly donor liver allografts with appropriate patient selection, donor blood glucose management and efficient liver recovery with minimal manipulation of the liver during donor surgery.

Pre-operative risk factors predict post-operative respiratory failure after liver transplantation

Objective

Post-operative pulmonary complications significantly affect patient survival rates, but there is still no conclusive evidence regarding the effect of post-operative respiratory failure after liver transplantation on patient prognosis. This study aimed to predict the risk factors for post-operative respiratory failure (PRF) after liver transplantation and the impact on short-term survival rates.

Design

The retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in a twelve-bed adult surgical intensive care unit in northern Taiwan. The medical records of 147 liver transplant patients were reviewed from September 2002 to July 2007. Sixty-two experienced post-operative respiratory failure while the remaining 85 patients did not.

Measurements and Main Results

Gender, age, etiology, disease history, pre-operative ventilator use, molecular adsorbent re-circulating system (MARS) use, source of organ transplantation, model for end-stage liver disease score (MELD) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh score calculated immediately before surgery were assessed for the two groups. The length of the intensive care unit stay, admission duration, and mortality within 30 days, 3 months, and 1 year were also evaluated. Using a logistic regression model, post-operative respiratory failure correlated with diabetes mellitus prior to liver transplantation, pre-operative impaired renal function, pre-operative ventilator use, pre-operative MARS use and deceased donor source of organ transplantation (p<0.05). Once liver transplant patients developed PRF, their length of ICU stay and admission duration were prolonged, significantly increasing their mortality and morbidity (p<0.001).

Conclusions

The predictive pre-operative risk factors significantly influenced the occurrence of post-operative respiratory failure after liver transplantation.

Liver Match, a prospective observational cohort study on liver transplantation in Italy: study design and current practice of donor-recipient matching

BACKGROUND

The Liver Match is an observational cohort study that prospectively enrolled liver transplantations performed at 20 out of 21 Italian Transplant Centres between June 2007 and May 2009. Aim of the study is to investigate the impact of donor/recipient matching on outcomes. In this report we describe the study methodology and provide a cross-sectional description of donor and recipient characteristics and of graft allocation.

METHODS

Adult primary transplants performed with deceased heart-beating donors were included. Relevant information on donors and recipients, organ procurement and allocation were prospectively entered in an ad hoc database within the National Transplant Centre web-based Network. Data were blindly analysed by an independent Biostatistical Board.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 1530 donor/recipient matches. Median donor age was 56 years. Female donors (n = 681, median 58, range 12-92 years) were older than males (n = 849, median 53, range 2-97 years, p < 0.0001). Donors older than 60 years were 42.2%, including 4.2% octogenarians. Brain death was due to non-traumatic causes in 1126 (73.6%) cases. Half of the donor population was overweight, 10.1% was obese and 7.6% diabetic. Hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) was present in 245 (16.0%) donors. The median Donor Risk Index (DRI) was 1.57 (>1.7 in 35.8%). The median cold ischaemia time was 7.3h (≥ 10 in 10.6%). Median age of recipients was 54 years, and 77.7% were males. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was the most frequent indication overall (44.4%), being a coindication in roughly 1/3 of cases, followed by viral cirrhosis without HCC (28.2%) and alcoholic cirrhosis without HCC (10.2%). Hepatitis C virus infection (with or without HCC) was the most frequent etiologic factor (45.9% of the whole population and 71.4% of viral-related cirrhosis), yet hepatitis B virus infection accounted for 28.6% of viral-related cirrhosis, and HBcAb positivity was found in 49.7% of recipients. The median Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant was 12 in patients with HCC and 18 in those without. Multivariate analysis showed a slight but significant inverse association between DRI and MELD at transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

The deceased donor population in Italy has a high-risk profile compared to other countries, mainly due to older donor age. Almost half of the grafts are transplanted in recipients with HCC. Higher risk donors tend to be preferentially allocated to recipients with HCC, who are usually less ill and older. No other relevant allocation strategy is currently adopted at national level.

Outcome of liver transplantation based on donor graft quality and recipient status

BACKGROUND

Availability of suitable donor organs has always limited the number of liver transplantations performed. Use of marginal donor organs is an alternative to overcome organ shortage.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect of various combinations of donor organ quality and recipient status on the outcome of liver transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 260 whole-liver transplantations performed between January 2003 and September 2009 were analyzed retrospectively. Study groups were established according to donor organ quality (marginal score 0-1 vs 2-5) and recipient status (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] score <17 or >17). In patients at low risk, 102 received optimal grafts (good-to-good group [G/G], and 75 received marginal grafts (bad-to-good group [B/G]. In patients at high risk, 46 received optimal grafts (good-to-bad group [G/B], and 37 received marginal grafts (bad-to-bad group [B/B].

RESULTS

No differences were observed in cumulative patient and graft survival rates; however, total survival differed in the early period after transplantation, that is, within 1 year. There was a higher rate of overall postoperative complications including initial poor graft function, bleeding, infection, and kidney failure in group B/B compared with group G/B (25 of 37 patients [67.5%] vs 27 of 46 patients [59.0%]), group B/G (25 of 37 patients [68%] vs 39 of 75 patients [52%], and group G/G (25 of 37 patients [68%] vs 43 of 102 patients [42%]) (P = .04). Patients with a high MELD score (G/B and B/B) demonstrated increased risk of postoperative complications. Use of donor organs with marginal score of 2 or higher in patients with high MELD scores increased early patient mortality.

CONCLUSION

In summary, patients with a high MELD score (G/B and B/B) are at an increased risk of post-OLT complications. In contrast, use of marginal grafts (B/G and B/B) increased the rate of hepatitis C virus recurrence and decreased the response rate to antiviral therapy. The combination of impaired donor grafts and recipients at high risk should be avoided.

Extended criteria donor and severe intraoperative glucose variability: association with reoperation for hemorrhage in liver transplantation

Reoperations for hemorrhage following liver transplantation (OLT) are commonly associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We sought to determine the incidence and risk factors for reoperation for hemorrhage among adult liver transplantations. We retrospectively analyzed 668 patients transplanted between January 2004 and November 2007. Within 30 days following transplantation one hundred eleven patients (16.6%) underwent 156 reoperations for hemorrhage, averaging 1.4 reoperations per patient. More than half of the reoperations occurred during the first 2 postoperative days. One-third of patients required 2 or more reoperations. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed 4 independent risk factors: grafts from donors with multiple extended criteria, severe intraoperative glucose variability, intraoperative use of vasopressors, and red blood cell transfusion requirement. In conclusion, we identified several independent risk factors for reoperation due to hemorrhage following OLT. Avoidance of severe intraoperative glucose variability and careful evaluation of the benefits and risks of utilizing extended criteria donors must be considered before transplantation.

Prediction of graft dysfunction based on extended criteria donors in the model for end-stage liver disease score era

BACKGROUND

To explain the influence of recipient status combined with the accumulation of extended criteria donor (ECD) variables on the appearance of severe ischemia-reperfusion injury and graft survival in a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-based system, we analyzed our most recent consecutive liver transplantations (LTs), dividing them into two periods: 400 LTs (1992-2002; pre-MELD era) and 275 LTs (2002-2007; post-MELD era).

METHODS

Primary dysfunction (PD) was defined as primary graft failure that required emergency retransplantation or as initial poor function. Donor variables were included in a regression model to assess the probability of PD.

RESULTS

Donor age, macrovesicular steatosis more than 30%, and cold ischemia time were associated with allograft dysfunction. Mean probability of PD was 14.8%, 19.2%, 27.5%, and 37.4% for ECD 0, 1, 2, and more than or equal to 3, respectively (P=0.003). Distribution of no-mild, moderate, and severe ischemia-reperfusion injuries among MELD categories was 72.53%, 24.17%, and 3.30% (MELD group=12-19); 56.52%, 36.96%, and 6.5% (MELD group=20-28); and 23.91%, 54.35%, and 21.74% (MELD group >or=29), respectively (P=0.043). The development of PD according to ECD variables was 18.8%, 18.1%, 28.0%, and 35.3% for ECD 0, 1, 2, and more than or equal to 3, respectively (P=0.047). These variables were independent predictors of PD (Cox proportional regression model): ECD 2 (relative risk [RR]=1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.25-1.62), ECD 3 (RR=2.74; 95% CI=2.38-3.13), MELD 21 to 30 (RR=1.89; 95% CI=1.32-2.06), and MELD more than or equal to 30 (RR=3.38; 95% CI=2.43-3.86). Graft survival decreased, whereas MELD and the number of ECD variables increased.

CONCLUSION

The combination of three or more ECD variables and an MELD more than or equal to 29 is the worst scenario for graft success after LT.

Survival benefit after liver transplantation: a single European center experience

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of the survival achieved with liver transplantation (LT) compared with remaining on the waiting list, the transplant benefit, should be the underlying principle of organ allocation.

METHODS

During 2004 to 2007 with an allocation system based on Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score with exceptions, we prospectively evaluated the transplant benefit and its relation to the match between recipient and donor characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 575 patients listed for chronic liver disease, 218 (37.9%) underwent LT and 115 (20%) were removed from the list (76 deaths, 25 tumor progressions, and 14 sick conditions). The 1- and 3-year survival rates on the list were significantly related to MELD score more than or equal to 20 (57% and 33% vs. 88% and 66%, P<0.001) and to its progression during the waiting time, such as s-Na levels less than or equal to 135 mEq/L (73% and 48% vs. 86% and 69%, P<0.001). These two variables had no impact on survival after LT, except in hepatitis C virus positive recipients. The multivariate Cox model confirmed a positive transplant benefit for all cases with MELD score more than or equal to 20 and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HR 2.9; CI 1.3-6.2) independently of the type of donors. Only hepatocellular carcinoma patients with low MELD scores showed a positive transplant benefit (MELD <15; HR 2; CI 1.1-5.1).

CONCLUSIONS

LT should be reserved for cirrhotic patients with MELD score more than or equal to 20 independently of other recipient and donor matches or for cases with lower MELD score but with hepatocellular carcinoma.

The role of marginal donors in liver transplantation. The Hungarian experience

A májátültetések számát korlátozza a beültetésre alkalmas donorszervek mennyisége. A szervhiány megoldására az egyik lehetőség az úgynevezett marginális donorok (extended donor criteria) elfogadása a májátültetési programban. Célkitűzés: A magyar májátültetési program szervdonációs jellemzőinek vizsgálata, különös tekintettel a marginális donorokra. Módszer: Donor- és recipiensadatok retrospektív feldolgozása 2003. január és 2008. december között. A marginálisdonor-kritériumrendszert nemzetközi ajánlások alapján állítottuk fel. Eredmények: A vizsgált periódus alatt összesen 1078 donort jelentettek a klinikán. Nyolcszázharmincöt esetben (77,4%) alkalmatlannak ítélték a donormájat a transzplantációra, 243 esetben (22,6%) volt beültetésre alkalmas a donormáj. A beültetett májgraftok közül 40 (16%) származott marginális, 203 (84%) nem marginális donorból. Marginális májgraftok beültetése esetén nem volt különbség a beteg- és grafttúlélésben, a posztoperatív graftfunkciót jelző paraméterekben és az általános szövődmények gyakoriságában. A korai hepatitis C-rekurrencia gyakoribb volt marginális graft beültetése esetén. Következtetések: A májátültetésre váró betegek száma hazánkban is folyamatosan növekszik. Marginális májgraftok alkalmazása esetén a betegek morbiditása és mortalitása nem különbözik számottevően a standard donorokból származó májgraftok beültetése után tapasztalt eredményektől. Hepatitis C-vírus esetén nem javasolt marginális májgraft beültetése. A donorok felső életkori határának kiterjesztése megfontolandó.

[The application of MELD score in patients submitted to liver transplantation: a retrospective analysis of survival and the predictive factors in the short and long term]

BACKGROUND

The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) was developed to predict short-term mortality in patients with cirrhosis. There are few reports studying the correlation between MELD and long-term posttransplantation survival.

AIM

To assess the value of pretransplant MELD in the prediction of posttransplant survival.

METHODS

The adult patients (age >18 years) who underwent liver transplantation were examined in a retrospective longitudinal cohort of patients, through the prospective data base. We excluded acute liver failure, retransplantation and reduced or split-livers. The liver donors were evaluated according to: age, sex, weight, creatinine, bilirubin, sodium, aspartate aminotransferase, personal antecedents, brain death cause, steatosis, expanded criteria donor number and index donor risk. The recipients' data were: sex, age, weight, chronic hepatic disease, Child-Turcotte-Pugh points, pretransplant and initial MELD score, pretransplant creatinine clearance, sodium, cold and warm ischemia times, hospital length of stay, blood requirements, and alanine aminotransferase (ALT >1,000 UI/L = liver dysfunction). The Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test was used for the univariable analyses of posttransplant patient survival. For the multivariable analyses the Cox proportional hazard regression method with the stepwise procedure was used with stratifying sodium and MELD as variables. ROC curve was used to define area under the curve for MELD and Child-Turcotte-Pugh.

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients with 10 years follow up were available. The MELD cutoff was 20 and Child-Turcotte-Pugh cutoff was 11.5. For MELD score > or =20, the risk factors for death were: red cell requirements, liver dysfunction and donor's sodium. For the patients with hyponatremia the risk factors were: negative delta-MELD score, red cell requirements, liver dysfunction and donor's sodium. The regression univariated analyses came up with the following risk factors for death: score MELD > or = 25, blood requirements, recipient creatinine clearance pretransplant and age donor > or =50. After stepwise analyses, only red cell requirement was predictive. Patients with MELD score < 25 had a 68.86%, 50,44% and 41,50% chance for 1, 5 and 10-year survival and > or =25 were 39.13%, 29.81% and 22.36% respectively. Patients without hyponatremia were 65.16%, 50.28% and 41,98% and with hyponatremia 44.44%, 34.28% and 28.57% respectively. Patients with IDR > or =1.7 showed 53.7%, 27.71% and 13.85% and index donor risk <1.7 was 63.62%, 51.4% and 44.08%, respectively. Age donor > 50 years showed 38.4%, 26.21% and 13.1% and age donor < or =50 years showed 65.58%, 26.21% and 13.1%. Association with delta-MELD score did not show any significant difference. Expanded criteria donors were associated with primary non-function and severe liver dysfunction. Predictive factors for death were blood requirements, hyponatremia, liver dysfunction and donor's sodium.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion MELD over 25, recipient's hyponatremia, blood requirements, donor's sodium were associated with poor survival.

Donor risk index and MELD interactions in predicting long-term graft survival: a single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Feng et al. described the donor risk index (DRI) in North American liver transplant recipients. We evaluated the effect of the DRI and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score on liver transplant recipients from a single center in the United Kingdom.

METHOD

Prospectively, collected data of all patients transplanted at our center between January 1995 and December 2005 were included in the analysis (n=1090). Outcomes evaluated included patient-censored and death-censored graft survival. Outcomes of liver transplantation from "high" and "low" DRI groups (> or =1.8 and <1.8, respectively) on patients categorized into low (<15), intermediate (15-30), and high (>30) MELD categories were analyzed.

RESULTS

MELD at transplant was the only significant predictor of patient survival. MELD at transplant and DRI more than 1.7 were associated with a poorer graft survival (P=0.03). There was a trend toward poorer graft survival in high DRI grafts transplanted in low and "intermediate" MELD categories (P=0.47 and 0.006, respectively). However, in the high MELD category, there was a similar graft survival for both high and low DRI grafts.

CONCLUSION

Patients with low and intermediate MELDs at transplantation may be better served by a low DRI graft, whereas patients with high MELD may not be compromised by receiving a high DRI graft.

Impact of the donor risk index on the outcome of hepatitis C virus-positive liver transplant recipients

We have investigated the impact of the donor risk index (DRI) on the outcome of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients undergoing liver transplantation (LTx). Retrospective analysis was performed from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database (January 1, 2000 to June, 2006). The DRI was calculated as described by Feng et al. (Am J Transplant 2006;6:783-790). Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exceptions were excluded from the analysis. Relative risk (RR) estimates of patient and graft loss were derived from Cox regression models. The Wald test was used to test the effect of the MELD score at transplant on the HCV-DRI interaction. Of the LTx recipients (16,678), 76.1% were Caucasian, and 66.7% were male; the median age was 52 (range, 18-80 years), and the mean follow-up time was 1148 days (range, 0-2959 days). Forty-six percent (n = 7675) of LTx recipients were HCV(+). The median DRI was 1.3 (range, 0.77-4.27). Increasing DRI was associated with a statistically significant increase in the RR of graft failure and patient death for both HCV(+) and HCV(-) recipients. However, HCV(+) recipients demonstrated a significantly higher increase in the RR of patient and graft loss as a function of the DRI than HCV(-) subjects, even after adjustments for several recipient factors, including MELD. In conclusion, a synergistic interaction between donor DRI and recipient HCV status exists, such that an allograft from a high-DRI donor more adversely affects the outcome of an HCV(+) recipient than that of an HCV(-) recipient.