United States donation after circulatory death liver transplantation is driven by a few high-utilization transplant centers

Variation in DCD Liver Transplant Protocols Among Transplant Centers in the United States

Background

Variation in donation after circulatory death (DCD) organ recovery and liver transplant practices exist among transplant centers. This study aimed to evaluate these practices among centers in the United States.

Methods

Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data were accessed to identify centers that performed liver transplantation in 2021 and 2022. Surveys were sent to transplant centers that consistently performed ≥5 DCD liver transplants per year.

Results

DCD liver transplants were performed by 95 centers (65.1%) of the 146 liver transplant centers in the United States. Survey results were recorded from 42 centers that consistently performed ≥5 DCD liver transplants per year, with a 59.5% response rate. Withdrawal-to-asystole and agonal time were used to define donor warm ischemia time (WIT) in 16% and 84% centers, respectively. Fifty-six percent of the centers did not use oxygen saturation to define donor WIT. Systolic blood pressure cutoffs used to define agonal time varied between 50 and 80 mm Hg, donor age cutoffs ranged between 55 and 75 y, and cold ischemia times varied between 4 and 10 h. Seventy-six percent of centers used normothermic machine perfusion for DCD liver transplantation.

Conclusions

This study highlights the wide variation in use, recovery, and definition of donor WIT. Using national data to rigorously define best practices will encourage greater utilization of this important donor resource.

Approach to Liver Transplantation: Is There a Difference between East and West?

Liver transplantation (LT) remains the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease as well as acute liver failure. With the exponential increase in organ demand due to the increasing incidence and prevalence of liver diseases, the need to overcome the supply and demand mismatch has arisen. In this review, we discuss the current universal status of LT, emphasizing various LT practices worldwide.

Association of procurement technique with organ yield and cost following donation after circulatory death

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) could account for the largest expansion of the donor allograft pool in the contemporary era. However, the organ yield and associated costs of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) compared to super-rapid recovery (SRR) with ex-situ normothermic machine perfusion, remain unreported. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (December 2019 to June 2023) was analyzed to determine the number of organs recovered per donor. A cost analysis was performed based on our institution's experience since 2022. Of 43 502 donors, 30 646 (70%) were donors after brain death (DBD), 12 536 (29%) DCD-SRR and 320 (0.7%) DCD-NRP. The mean number of organs recovered was 3.70 for DBD, 3.71 for DCD-NRP (P < .001), and 2.45 for DCD-SRR (P < .001). Following risk adjustment, DCD-NRP (adjusted odds ratio 1.34, confidence interval 1.04-1.75) and DCD-SRR (adjusted odds ratio 2.11, confidence interval 2.01-2.21; reference: DBD) remained associated with greater odds of allograft nonuse. Including incomplete and completed procurement runs, the total average cost of DCD-NRP was $9463.22 per donor. By conservative estimates, we found that approximately 31 donor allografts could be procured using DCD-NRP for the cost equivalent of 1 allograft procured via DCD-SRR with ex-situ normothermic machine perfusion. In conclusion, DCD-SRR procurements were associated with the lowest organ yield compared to other procurement methods. To facilitate broader adoption of DCD procurement, a comprehensive understanding of the trade-offs inherent in each technique is imperative.

Liver machine perfusion technology: Expanding the donor pool to improve access to liver transplantation

The imbalance between organ supply and demand continues to limit the broader benefits of organ transplantation. Machine perfusion (MP) may increase the supply of donor livers by expanding the use of extended-criteria donors. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Standard Transplant Analysis and Research dataset, we reviewed the effect of MP implementation on the behavior of transplant centers. We identified 15 high-utilizing MP centers that were matched to suitable controls based on volume and geographical proximity. We conducted a differences-in-differences analysis using linear regression to estimate the impact of MP adoption on the transplant centers' donor utilization. We found a significant increase in cold ischemia time and organs with donor warm ischemia time over 30 minutes (P < .05). After removing one outlier center, the analysis showed that these centers through MP accepted overall more donation after circulatory death donors, donation after circulatory death donors over 50 years old, donors with macrovesicular steatosis greater than 30% on liver biopsy, and donor warm ischemia time over 30 minutes (P < .05). MP has allowed centers to expand their use of extended-criteria donors beyond traditional cutoffs and to increase patient access to liver transplantation.

Implications of drug intoxication on donor utilization and outcomes in liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the implications of drug intoxication (DI) on donor utilization and outcomes in liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

The UNOS STAR database was evaluated for all potential donors and adult, first-time, whole LT between 2005 and 2019. Logistic regression analyses evaluated liver utilization; proportional hazards modeling assessed risk of 1-year graft loss.

RESULTS

A total of 132 783 potential donors (10 205, 7.7% from DI), and 90 612 adult LT were identified (7490, 8.3% from DI). DI donors had median age 32 years (IQR 26-40 years, p < .001), were 42.6% female (n = 4346), and 15.5% were DCD donors (n = 1583). Utilization of DI donors changed over time, such that by 2015-2019 they were the most likely donor cause of death (COD) to be utilized. Among LT recipients, there were insignificant differences (<2% variance) in age, gender, ethnicity, and etiology of liver disease according to donor COD. Recipients with MELD scores >30 more frequently received grafts from donors with trauma (23.8%) and DI (21.8%) versus cardiovascular (20.0%) and CVA/stroke (19.9%, p < .001). Among DBD donors, DI-COD was associated with superior 1-year graft survival compared to donors from trauma (HR 1.172, 95% CI 1.057-1.300) and CVA/stroke (HR 1.404, 95% CI 1.264-1.561, p < .001). Donor COD was not significantly associated with 1-year graft loss among DCD donors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increased likelihood of donor utilization when COD is drug overdose and an increased likelihood of 1-year graft survival compared to donors from trauma, CVA/stroke, and other COD.

Decreased Utilization Rate of Grafts for Liver Transplantation After Implementation of Acuity Circle-based Allocation

BACKGROUND

The allocation system for livers began using acuity circles (AC) in 2020. In this study, we sought to evaluate the impact of AC policy on the utilization rate for liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

Using the US national registry data between 2018 and 2022, LTs were equally divided into 2 eras: pre-AC (before February 4, 2020) and post-AC (February 4, 2020, and after). Deceased potential liver donors were defined as deceased donors from whom at least 1 organ was procured.

RESULTS

The annual number of deceased potential liver donors increased post-AC (from 10 423 to 12 259), approaching equal to that of new waitlist registrations for LT (n = 12 801). Although the discard risk index of liver grafts was comparable between the pre- and post-AC eras, liver utilization rates in donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors were lower post-AC ( P  < 0.01; 79.8% versus 83.4% and 23.7% versus 26.0%, respectively). Recipient factors, ie, no recipient located, recipient determined unsuitable, or time constraints, were more likely to be reasons for nonutilization after implementation of the AC allocation system compared to the pre-AC era (20.0% versus 12.3% for DBD donors and 50.1% versus 40.8% for DCD donors). Among non-high-volume centers, centers with lower utilization of marginal DBD donors or DCD donors were more likely to decrease LT volume post-AC.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the number of deceased potential liver donors has increased, overall liver utilization among deceased donors has decreased in the post-AC era. To maximize the donor pool for LT, future efforts should target specific reasons for liver nonutilization.

Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation: Early Challenges, Clinical Improvement, and Future Directions

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts remain a widely underutilized source of donor organs for transplantation. Although initially linked with inferior outcomes, DCD liver transplant can achieve excellent patient and graft survival with suitable matching of donor and recipient characteristics, rapid donor recovery and precise donor assessment, and appropriate perioperative management. The advent of clinical liver perfusion modalities promises to redefine the viability parameters for DCD liver allografts and hopefully will encourage more widespread usage of this growing source of donor livers.

Impact of Median MELD at Transplant Minus 3 National Policy on Quality of Transplanted Livers for Patients With and Without Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been overprioritized in the deceased donor liver allocation system. The United Network for Organ Sharing adopted a policy in May 2019 that limited HCC exception points to the median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at transplant in the listing region minus 3. We hypothesized this policy change would increase the likelihood to transplant marginal quality livers into HCC patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of a national transplant registry, including adult deceased donor liver transplant recipients with and without HCC from May 18, 2017, to May 18, 2019 (prepolicy) to May 19, 2019, to March 1, 2021 (postpolicy). Transplanted livers were considered of marginal quality if they met ≥1 of the following: (1) donation after circulatory death, (2) donor age ≥70, (3) macrosteatosis ≥30% and (4) donor risk index ≥95th percentile. We compared characteristics across policy periods and by HCC status.

RESULTS

A total of 23 164 patients were included (11 339 prepolicy and 11 825 postpolicy), 22.7% of whom received HCC exception points (prepolicy versus postpolicy: 26.1% versus 19.4%; P = 0.03). The percentage of transplanted donor livers meeting marginal quality criteria decreased for non-HCC (17.3% versus 16.0%; P < 0.001) but increased for HCC (17.7% versus 19.4%; P < 0.001) prepolicy versus postpolicy. After adjusting for recipient characteristics, HCC recipients had 28% higher odds of being transplanted with marginal quality liver independent of policy period (odds ratio: 1.28; confidence interval, 1.09-1.50; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at transplant in the listing region minus 3 policy limited exception points and decreased the quality of livers received by HCC patients.

Utilization of livers donated after circulatory death for transplantation - An international comparison

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver graft utilization rates are a hot topic due to the worldwide organ shortage and the increasing number of transplant candidates on waiting lists. Liver perfusion techniques have been introduced in several countries, and may help to increase the organ supply, as they potentially enable the assessment of livers before use.

METHODS

Liver offers were counted from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors (Maastricht type III) arising during the past decade in eight countries, including Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the US. Initial type-III DCD liver offers were correlated with accepted, recovered and implanted livers.

RESULTS

A total number of 34,269 DCD livers were offered, resulting in 9,780 liver transplants (28.5%). The discard rates were highest in the UK and US, ranging between 70 and 80%. In contrast, much lower DCD liver discard rates, e.g. between 30-40%, were found in Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. In addition, we observed large differences in the use of various machine perfusion techniques, as well as in graft and donor risk factors. For example, the median donor age and functional donor warm ischemia time were highest in Italy, e.g. >40 min, followed by Switzerland, France, and the Netherlands. Importantly, such varying risk profiles of accepted DCD livers between countries did not translate into large differences in 5-year graft survival rates, which ranged between 60-82% in this analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, DCD liver discard rates across the eight countries were high, although this primarily reflects the situation in the Netherlands, the UK and the US. Countries where in situ and ex situ machine perfusion strategies were used routinely had better DCD utilization rates without compromised outcomes.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

A significant number of Maastricht type III DCD livers are discarded across Europe and North America today. The overall utilization rate among eight Western countries is 28.5% but varies significantly between 18.9% and 74.2%. For example, the median DCD-III liver utilization in five countries, e.g. Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and Spain is 65%, in contrast to 24% in the Netherlands, UK and US. Despite this, and despite different rules and strategies for organ acceptance and preservation, 1- and 5-year graft survival rates remain fairly similar among all participating countries. A highly varying experience with modern machine perfusion technology was observed. In situ and ex situ liver perfusion concepts, and application of assessment tools for type-III DCD livers before transplantation, may be a key explanation for the observed differences in DCD-III utilization.

DCD Hepatitis C Virus-positive Donor Livers Can Achieve Favorable Outcomes With Liver Transplantation and Are Underutilized

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive donors (antibody-positive [Ab + ] or nucleic acid test positive [NAT + ] donors) have been underutilized. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilization of livers from HCV-positive with donation after circulatory death (DCD) and to assess outcomes in recipients of these grafts.

METHODS

Data between 2015 and 2019 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. The utilization rates and graft survival among 8455 DCD liver and nonliver donors and 2278 adult DCD liver transplantation (LT) recipients were reviewed on the basis of donor HCV Ab/NAT status.

RESULTS

The utilization of Ab + /NAT - donors <40 y and Ab + /NAT + donors ≥40 y was low than utilization of HCV-negative donors ( P  < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified HCV status (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.48 in Ab + /NAT - , and OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.05 in Ab + /NAT + ) as an independent predictor of nonutilization of liver grafts. The rate of significant liver fibrosis was comparable in Ab + /NAT - (3.5%; P  = 0.84) but was higher in Ab + /NAT + (8.7%; P  = 0.03) than that in Ab - /NAT - donors. Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated comparable 3-y patient survival in recipients of HCV-positive grafts compared with recipients of HCV-negative grafts ( P  = 0.63; 85.6% in Ab - /NAT - , 80.4% in Ab + /NAT - , and 88.7% in Ab + /NAT + ).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and graft survival rates are similar between HCV-positive and HCV-negative DCD LT. However, HCV-positive donors are particularly underutilized for DCD LT.

Outcomes after liver transplantation using deceased after circulatory death donors: A comparison of outcomes in the UK and the US

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Identifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population-level insight.

METHODS

Adult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time-dependent Cox-regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk-adjusted short-term (0-90 days) and longer-term (90 days-5 years) outcomes.

RESULTS

One-thousand five-hundred-and-sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk-adjusted short-term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer-term (90 days-5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

For those receiving a DCD LT, longer-term post-transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.

American Society of Transplant Surgeons recommendations on best practices in donation after circulatory death organ procurement

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons supports efforts to increase the number of organs that are critically needed for patients desperately awaiting transplantation. In the United States, transplantation using organs procured from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors has continued to increase in number. Despite these increases, substantial variability in the utilization and practices of DCD transplantation still exists. To improve DCD organ utilization, it is important to create a set of best practices for DCD recovery. The following recommendations aim to provide guidance on contemporary issues surrounding DCD organ procurement in the United States. A work group was composed of members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeon Scientific Studies Committee and the Thoracic Organ Transplantation Committee. The following topics were identified by the group either as controversial or lacking standardization: prewithdrawal preparation, definition of donor warm ischemia time, DCD surgical technique, combined thoracic and abdominal procurements, and normothermic regional perfusion. The proposed recommendations were classified on the basis of the grade of available evidence and the strength of the recommendation. This information should be valuable for transplant programs as well as for organ procurement organizations and donor hospitals as they develop robust DCD donor procurement protocols.

Outcomes of a High-Volume Organ Procurement Organization in the Era of Increasing Donation After Circulatory Death

Introduction: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is rapidly increasing in the United States. Detailed data outlining the process from referral to organ transplantation is lacking. Project Aims: We sought to quantify differences at each stage along the referral to donation pathway by donor type. Additionally, we examined factors associated with successful DCD organ utilization. Design: This program evaluation analyzed data from a single organ procurement organization in 2018 to assess demographic and clinical predictors of progression through the donation process, including the role of first-person authorization in DCD. Descriptive statistics were examined by donation stage for demographic characteristics using chi-square; univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to model predictors of utilization and authorization by organ type, respectively. Results: There were 2466 organ donation referrals during 2018, including 575 donations after brainstem death (DBD), 1890 controlled DCD referrals, and 1 uncontrolled DCD referral. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models highlighted differences in authorization rates by donor type (DCD vs DBD) and by age, race, and ethnicity. Next-of-kin authorization was declined in 23% of first-person authorized potential DCD, highlighting issues related to the role of donor registration in DCD. Pre-mortem heparin administration was predictive of DCD organ utilization; donor age and warm ischemia time of less than 30 min was statistically significantly associated with DCD extra-renal organ utilization. Conclusion: These results provided insight into strategies for increasing authorization and transplantation of organs from DCD donors and identified areas of improvement for process standardization and policy development.

Impact of Donation After Circulatory Death Allografts on Outcomes After Liver Transplant for Hepatitis C: A Single-Center Experience and Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the impact of liver transplant from donors after circulatory death on incidence and severity of recurrent hepatitis C virus infection, graft and patient survival and aimed to identify predictors of outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all liver transplants performed at a single center (July 2007-February 2014). Patients with hepatitis C who underwent liver transplant from donors after circulatory death (group 1) were compared with hepatitis C patients who received grafts from donors after brain death (group 2) and patients without hepatitis C who received grafts from donors after circulatory death (group 3).We used the Kaplan-Meier method for survival analysis and performed a multivariable analysis for predictors of outcomes using Cox regression. Competing risk was used to analyze hepatitis C recurrence.

RESULTS

Of 196 patients, 107 were included: 25 in group 1, 46 in group 2, and 36 in group 3. All 3 groups were comparable, except for longer cold ischemia time (P < .01) in group 1, lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score at transplant in groups 1 and 3 (P < .01), and greater proportion of recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma in groups 1 and 2 (P = .02). Hepatitis C recurrence and severe recurrence at 1 and 3 years were higher in group 1 (but not statistically significant). Severe recurrence was noted in 17% versus 8% at 1 year (P = .12) and 30% versus 14% at 3 years (P = .08). Graft and patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were comparable in all 3 study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent hepatitis C, including severe recurrence, was greater following donation after circulatory death compared with donation after brain death liver transplant. However, graft survival and patient survival were comparable, including in recipients of donation after circulatory death grafts without hepatitis C.

Lost potential and missed opportunities for DCD liver transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Donation after cardiac death(DCD) has been proposed as an avenue to expand the liver donor pool.

METHODS

We examined factors associated with nonrecovery of DCD livers using UNOS data from 2015 to 2019.

RESULTS

There 265 non-recovered potential(NRP) DCD livers. Blood type AB (7.8% vs. 1.1%) and B (16.9% vs. 9.8%) were more frequent in the NRP versus actual donors (p < 0.001). The median driving time between donor hospital and transplant center was similar for NRP and actual donors (30.1 min vs. 30.0 min; p = 0.689), as was the percentage located within a transplant hospital (20.8% vs. 20.9%; p = 0.984).The donation service area(DSA) of a donor hospital explained 27.9% (p = 0.001) of the variability in whether a DCD liver was recovered.

CONCLUSION

A number of potentially high quality DCD donor livers go unrecovered each year, which may be partially explained by donor blood type and variation in regional and DSA level practice patterns.

The Implication of Center Volumes in Donation After Circulatory Death for Liver Transplantation: Donor-Recipient Selection and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The use of donation after circulatory death liver transplant (DCD LT) has increased and the outcomes have improved. There are little data concerning the details of centers' practice.

METHODS

Using the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research data, the centers were stratified into 4 quartiles: lowest-, low-, high-, and highest-volume quartiles.

RESULTS

High-risk donors, defined as older donors (≥50 years) or obese donors (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²), linearly increased in line with the centers' volumes (P < .001), while cold ischemia time (CIT) showed an inverse correlation (P < .001). High-risk recipients, defined as those with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, re-LT, inpatient, or ventilator/dialysis before LT, did not show any significant difference (P = .74) except in the highest-volume quartile (P < .001). One-year graft survival showed a bimodal pattern across the 4 quartiles (P = .027): superior graft survival in the highest-volume quartile and in the low-volume quartile and inferior graft survival in the high-volume quartile and in the lowest-volume quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk donors can achieve satisfactory outcomes by being matched with low-risk recipients and shortening CIT. However, high-risk recipients may not result in favorable outcomes with DCD LT even with centers' experience and shorter CIT.

The volume - Outcomes relationship in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation

Background

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) has become an effective mechanism for expanding the donor pool and decreasing waitlist mortality. However, it is unclear if low‐volume DCD centers can achieve comparable outcomes to high‐volume centers.

Methods

From 2011 to 2019 utilizing the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database, liver transplant centers were categorized into tertiles based on their annual volume of DCD LTs. Donor selection, recipient selection, and survival outcomes were compared between very‐low volume (VLV, n = 1–2 DCD LTs per year), low‐volume (LV, n = 3–5), and high‐volume (HV, n > 5) centers.

Results

One hundred and ten centers performed 3273 DCD LTs. VLV‐centers performed 339 (10.4%), LV‐centers performed 627 (19.2%), and HV‐centers performed 2307 (70.4%) LTs. 30‐day, 90‐day, and 1‐year patient and graft survival were significantly increased at HV‐centers (all P < .05). Recipients at HV‐centers had shorter waitlist durations (P < .01) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (P < .01). On multivariable regression, undergoing DCD LT at a VLV‐center or LV‐center was associated with increased 1‐year patient mortality (VLV‐OR:1.73, 1.12–2.69) (LV‐OR: 1.42, 1.01–2.00) and 1‐year graft failure (VLV‐OR: 1.79, 1.24–2.58) (LV‐OR: 1.28, .95–1.72).

Discussion

Increased annual DCD liver transplant volume is associated with improved patient and graft survival.

Temporal Trends in Utilization and Outcomes of DCD Livers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Historically, donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers were frequently discarded because of higher mortality and graft loss after liver transplantation (LT). However, the demand for LT continues to outstrip the supply of "acceptable" organs. Additionally, changes in the donor pool, organ allocation, and clinical management of donors and recipients, and improved clinical protocols might have altered post-DCD-LT outcomes.

METHODS

We studied 5975 recovered DCD livers using US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017, with a comparison group of 78 235 adult donation after brain death (DBD) livers recovered during the same time period. We quantified temporal trends in discard using adjusted multilevel logistic regression and temporal trends in post-LT mortality and graft loss for DCD LT recipients using adjusted Cox regression.

RESULTS

DCD livers were more likely to be discarded than DBD livers across the entire study period, and the relative likelihood of discard increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of discard DCD versus DBD 3.854.455.14 2005-2007, 5.225.876.59 2015-2017) despite improving outcomes after DCD LT. Mortality risk for DCD LTs decreased in each time period (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.720.840.97, aHR 2012-2014 0.480.580.70, aHR 2015-2017 0.340.430.55), as did risk of graft loss (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.690.810.94, aHR 2012-2014 0.450.550.67, aHR 2015-2017 0.360.450.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite dramatic improvements in outcomes of DCD LT recipients, DCD livers remain substantially more likely to be discarded than DBD livers, and this discrepancy has actually increased over time. DCD livers are underutilized and have the potential to expand the donor pool.

Advantages and Limitations of Clinical Scores for Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation

Background: Scoring systems have been proposed to select donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and recipients for liver transplantation (LT). We hypothesized that complex scoring systems derived in large datasets might not predict outcomes locally. Methods: Based on 1-year DCD-LT graft survival predictors in multivariate logistic regression models, we designed, validated, and compared a simple index using the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) cohort (n = 136) and a universal-comprehensive (UC)-DCD score using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) cohort (n = 5,792) to previously published DCD scoring systems. Results: The total warm ischemia time (WIT)-index included donor WIT (dWIT) and hepatectomy time (dHep). The UC-DCD score included dWIT, dHep, recipient on mechanical ventilation, transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt, cause of liver disease, model for end-stage liver disease, body mass index, donor/recipient age, and cold ischemia time. In the UNOS cohort, the UC-score outperformed all previously published scores in predicting DCD-LT graft survival (AUC: 0.635 vs. ≤0.562). In the UCSF cohort, the total WIT index successfully stratified survival and biliary complications, whereas other scores did not. Conclusion: DCD risk scores generated in large cohorts provide general guidance for safe recipient/donor selection, but they must be tailored based on non-/partially-modifiable local circumstances to expand DCD utilization.

Safely Expanding the Liver Donor Pool by Utilization of Organs from Donation after Circulatory Death with Comparable Results to Donation After Brain Death, a Large Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Use of livers donated after circulatory death (DCD) is one way to expand the donor pool. Our center has aggressively incorporated use of DCD liver grafts into practice. We examined our center and national outcomes as well as national DCD liver utilization.

METHODS

Liver transplants performed at our center and nationally from 11/2016 through 9/2020 were compared. Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival, and national DCD liver utilization.

RESULTS

For our center, DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donors were similar except DCD donors were younger (37 vs 40 years; p < 0.05). Recipient Na-MELD (20 vs 24; p < 0.0001) and cold ischemia time (4.63 vs 5.18 h; p < 0.05) were lower in DCD recipients. There were no significant differences in 1-year patient and graft survival between DCD and DBD liver recipients locally. Nationally, there was a difference in 1-year graft survival year (89.4% vs 92.4%, p < 0.0001) but patient survival was similar between groups. The proportion of DCD livers recovered and transplanted widely varied among organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and transplant centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar outcomes for DCD and DBD liver recipients should encourage centers and OPOs nationwide to expand utilization of DCD livers.

Comparable graft survival is achievable with the usage of donation after circulatory death liver grafts from donors at or above 70 years of age: A long-term UK national analysis

The aim of the study was to assess the UK donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplant experience from donors ≥70 years. Nationwide UK DCD retrospective analysis was conducted between 2001 and 2015 (n = 1163). Recipients were divided into group 1 vs. group 2 (donors 70≥ vs. <70 years, respectively). group 1 (n = 69, 5.9%) recipients were older (median 59 vs. 55 years, p = .001) and had longer waitlist time (128 vs. 84 days; p = .039). 94.2% of group 1 clustered in London and Birmingham, where the two busiest centers are located. group 1 allografts had higher UKDRI and UK DCD Risk Scores but similar WIT and CIT and were more likely to have been imported. Both groups had similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival (group 1, 90%, 81.4%, and 74% vs. group 2, 88.6%, 81.4%, and 78.6%, respectively; p = .54). Both groups had similar ICU stay length (p = .22), 3-month hepatic artery thrombosis rates (4.4% vs 4.0%; p = .9), and 12-month readmission rates for all biliary complications (20.3% vs 25.7%; p = .32). This study demonstrates that acceptable outcomes are achievable using older grafts in a highly selected cohort at experienced centers. Advanced age should not be an absolute contraindication to utilizing a DCD graft from donors aged ≥70 years.

Donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: An in-depth analysis and propensity score-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

Careful donor-recipient matching and reduced ischemia times have improved outcomes following donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT). This study examines a single-center experience with DCD LT including high-acuity and hospitalized recipients.

METHODS

DCD LT outcomes were compared to a propensity score-matched (PSM) donation after brain death (DBD) LT cohort (1:4); 32 DCD LT patients and 128 PSM DBD LT patients transplanted from 2008 to 2018 were included. Analyses included Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models examining patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

Median MELD score in the DCD LT cohort was 22, with median MELD of 27 for DCD LT recipients with decompensated cirrhosis. No difference in mortality or graft loss was found (p < .05) between DCD LT and PSM DBD LT at 3 years post-transplant, nor was DCD an independent risk factor for patient or graft survival. Post-LT severe acute kidney injury was similar in both groups. Ischemic-type biliary lesions (ITBL) occurred in 6.3% (n = 2) of DCD LT recipients, resulting in 1 graft loss and 1 death.

CONCLUSION

This study supports that DCD LT outcomes can be similar to DBD LT, with a low rate of ITBL, in a cohort including high-acuity recipients. Strict donor selection criteria, ischemia time minimization, and avoiding futile donor/recipient combinations are essential considerations.

Evolving utilization of donation after circulatory death livers in liver transplantation: The day of DCD has come

Compared to donation after brain death (DBD), livers procured for transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors experience more ischemia-reperfusion injury and higher rates of ischemic cholangiopathy due to the period of warm ischemic time (WIT) following withdrawal of life support. As a result, utilization of DCD livers for liver transplant (LT) has generally been limited to short WITs and younger aged donor grafts, causing many recovered DCD organs to be discarded without consideration for transplant. This study assesses how DCD liver utilization and outcomes have changed over time, using OPTN data from adult, first-time, deceased donor, whole-organ LTs between January 1995 and December 2019. Results show that increased clinical experience with DCD LT has translated into increased use of livers from DCD donors, shorter ischemic times, shorter lengths of hospitalization after transplant, and lower rates of retransplantation. The data also reveal that over the past decade, the rate of increase in DCD LTs conducted in the United States has outpaced that of DBD. Together, these trends signal an opportunity for the field of liver transplantation to mitigate the organ shortage by capitalizing on DCD liver allografts that are currently not being utilized.

Expanding Role of Donation After Circulatory Death Donors in Liver Transplantation

Better understanding of how to utilize donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts has resulted in improved national outcomes and expansion in the number of DCD liver transplants (LTs). This improvement has been driven by better donor and recipient matching, careful evaluation of hemodynamics during withdrawal of life support, and refinement of the procurement operation. Changes to liver allocation likely will result in increased utilization of DCD liver grafts. Ischemic cholangiopathy remains the Achilles heel of DCD LTs and, although rates have fallen with improved protocols, a certain rate likely is unavoidable. This review discusses contemporary issues with DCD LTs.

Biliary complications in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: the Australian National Liver Transplantation Unit's experience

BACKGROUND

Biliary complications are the most common complications of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation and the international experience with DCD transplants suggests increased rates of biliary complications compared to donation after brain death transplants. Therefore, it is important to understand factors that are associated with the development of biliary complications within the Australian DCD context in order to inform future practice. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of biliary complications after DCD liver transplantation at the Australian National Liver Transplantation Unit and identify factors associated with this outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all adult DCD liver transplants at the Australian National Liver Transplantation Unit from 2007 to 2015 was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of biliary complications and was censored on 31 December 2016. Recipients were then stratified into groups based on the development of biliary complications and risk factor analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Biliary complications occurred in 35% of DCD transplants, including seven anastomotic strictures and 10 non-anastomotic strictures. Higher donor risk index scores (P = 0.03), post-transplant portal vein complications (P = 0.042) and peak gamma-glutamyl transferase levels within 7 days post-transplant (P = 0.047) were associated with biliary complications.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study demonstrate that biliary complications remain common in DCD liver recipients. Recipients who developed a biliary complication tended to have higher donor risk index, elevated peak gamma-glutamyl transferase levels within 7 days post-transplant or a portal vein complication. The presence of any of these factors should prompt close monitoring for post-transplant biliary complications.

The Changing Landscapes in DCD Liver Transplantation

Purpose of Review

The transplant community continues to look for ways to help address the discordance between donor liver graft availability and patients on the liver transplant waiting list. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor livers represents one potential means to help address this discordance. The present review describes the changing landscape of DCD liver transplantation (LT).

Recent Findings

The number of DCD LTs performed annually within the USA has continued to grow on an annual basis. Importantly, national data has demonstrated that outcomes with DCD LT have been improving. This improvement has been driven by better understanding of how to successfully utilize these organs through better donor and recipient matching and careful evaluation of both hemodynamics during withdrawal of life support and the refinement of the procurement operation.

Summary

Despite these improvements in outcome, ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) continues to be the Achilles heel of DCD LT. Emerging technologies such as various forms of machine perfusion may allow for reduction of complications and better prognostication of the risk associated with DCD liver grafts.

Donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: What are the limits for an acceptable DCD graft?

The utilization of donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers has been growing over the last decade. In large-volume centers, survival outcomes have improved and are comparable to outcomes with brain death donor (DBD) liver transplantation (LT). The relatively concentrated success with DCD LT demonstrated by high-volume transplant centers has rekindled international enthusiasm. The combination of increasing expertise in DCD LT and ongoing shortage in transplantable organs has promoted expansion of the DCD donor pool with regards to donor age, body mass index and donor warm ischemia time. In this review, we focused on the practice patterns in DCD liver graft utilization in the last decade, along with the possibilities for further expansion of DCD liver graft utilization and new technologies, such as machine perfusion.