Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: an updated perspective

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation: future perspective

BACKGROUND

The aims of this narrative review were (i) to describe the current indications of SLKT, (ii) to report evolution of SLKT activity, (iii) to report the outcomes of SLKT, (iv) to explain the immune-protective effect of liver transplant on kidney transplant, (v) to explain the interest of delay kidney transplantation, using hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP), (vi) to report kidney after liver transplantation (KALT) indications and (vii) to describe the value of the increase in the use of extended criteria donors (ECD) and particular controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) transplant, thanks to the development of new organ preservation strategies.

METHOD

Electronic databases were screened using the keywords "Simultaneous", "Combined", "kidney transplantation" and "liver transplantation". The methodological and clinical heterogeneity of the included studies meant that meta-analysis was inappropriate.

RESULTS

 A total of 1,917 publications were identified in the literature search. Two reviewers screened all study abstracts independently and 1,107 of these were excluded. Thus, a total of 79 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 21 were excluded. In total, 58 studies were included in this systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

 Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation has made a significant contribution for patients with dual-organ disease. The optimization of indication and selection of SLKT patients will reduce futile transplantation. Moreover, increasing the use of transplants from extended criteria donors, in particular cDCD, should be encouraged, thanks to the development of new modalities of organ preservation.

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.

Expanding Liver Transplant Opportunities in Older Patients With Nonconventional Grafts

INTRODUCTION

Broader use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and nonconventional grafts for liver transplant helps reduce disparities in organ availability. Limited data, however, exists on outcomes specific to nonconventional graft utilization in older patients. As such, this study aimed to investigate outcomes specific to conventional and nonconventional graft utilization in recipients > 70 y of age.

METHODS

1-to-3 matching based on recipient sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and donor type was performed on patients ≥70 and <70 y of age who underwent liver transplant alone at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were posttransplant patient and liver allograft survival for recipients greater than or less than 70 y of age. Secondary outcomes included grafts utilization patterns, hospital length of stay, need for reoperation, biliary complications and disposition at time of hospital discharge.

RESULTS

In this cohort, 36.1% of grafts came from DCD donors, 17.4% were postcross clamp offers, and 20.8% were nationally allocated. Median recipient ages were 59 and 71 y (P < 0.01). Recipients had similar Intensive care unit (P = 0.82) and hospital (P = 0.14) lengths of stay, and there were no differences in patient (P = 0.68) or graft (P = 0.38) survival. When comparing donation after brain death and DCD grafts in those >70 y, there were no differences in patient (P = 0.89) or graft (P = 0.71) survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent outcomes can be achieved in older recipients, even with use of nonconventional grafts. Expanded use of nonconventional grafts can help facilitate transplant opportunities in older patients.

Simultaneous thoracic and abdominal donation after circulatory death organ recovery: the abdominal surgeon's perspective

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

To summarize the international experience with heart-liver (joint) donation after circulatory death (DCD) procurements and to explore the technical challenges in joint abdominal and thoracic DCD procurement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Following completion of the Donors After Circulatory Death Heart Trial in the US, combined thoracic and abdominal DCD is poised to become the standard of care, expanding access to life-saving heart and lung allografts. DCD heart procurement relies on collection of donor blood for priming of the normothermic perfusion pump, which delays cooling of abdominal organs and increases risk of ischemic injury. We review the effect of donor ischemia time on abdominal organs, with several proposed technical solutions to optimize transplant outcomes for all organs.

SUMMARY

The strategies reviewed in this manuscript may inform clinical decision-making, preoperative coordination between thoracic and abdominal procurement teams, and surgical technique for joint DCD procurements. Several approaches to organ procurement organization (OPO) and national policy, as well as future areas of focus for research are proposed.

Donation after circulatory death transplant outcomes using livers recovered by local surgeons

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non-TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p < 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow-up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent-free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re-LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98-4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.

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

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

Ischemic Cholangiopathy Postdonation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation: Donor Hepatectomy Time Matters

Background.

Outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) from donation after circulatory death (DCD) have been improving; however, ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) continues to be a problem. In 2014, measures to minimize donor hepatectomy time (DHT) and cold ischemic time (CIT) have been adopted to improve DCD LT outcomes.

Methods.

Retrospective review of all patients who underwent DCD LT between 2005 and 2017 was performed. We compared outcomes of patients who were transplanted before 2014 (historic group) with those who were transplanted between 2014 and 2017 (modern group).

Results.

We identified 112 patients; 44 were in the historic group and 68 in the modern group. Donors in the historic group were younger (26.5 versus 33, P = 0.007) and had a lower body mass index (26.2 versus 28.2, P = 0.007). DHT (min) and CIT (h) were significantly longer in the historic group (21.5 versus 14, P < 0.001 and 5.3 versus 4.2, P < 0.001, respectively). Fourteen patients (12.5%) developed IC, with a significantly higher incidence in the historic group (23.3% versus 6.1%, P = 0.02). There was no difference in graft and patient survival between both groups.

Conclusion.

In appropriately selected recipients, minimization of DHT and CIT may decrease the incidence of IC. These changes can potentially expand the DCD donor pool.

Liver transplant with controlled donors after circulatory death with normothermic regional perfusion and brain dead donors: A multicenter cohort study of transfusion, one-year graft survival and mortality

BACKGROUND

Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) has expanded the donor pool for liver transplantation (LT). However, transfusion requirements and perioperative outcomes should be elucidated. The aim of this multicenter study was to assess red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, one-year graft and patient survival after LT after cDCD with normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) compared with donors after brain death (DBD).

METHODS

591 LT carried out in ten centers during 2019 were reviewed. Thromboelastometry was used to manage coagulation and blood product transfusion in all centers. Normothermic regional perfusion was the standard technique for organ recovery.

RESULTS

447 patients received DBD and 144 cDCD with NRP. Baseline MCF Extem was lower in the cDCD group There were no differences in the percentage of patients (63% vs. 61% p = 0.69), nor in the number of RBC units transfused (4.7 (0.2) vs 5.5 (0.4) in DBD vs cDCD, p = 0.11. Twenty-six patients (6%) died during admission for LT in the DBD group compared with 3 patients (2%) in the cDCD group (p = 0.15). To overcome the bias due to a worse coagulation profile in cDCD recipients, matched samples were compared. No differences in baseline laboratory data, or in intraoperative use of RBC or one-year outcome data were observed between DBD and cDCD recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

cDCD with NRP is not associated with increased RBC transfusion. No differences in graft and patient survival between cDCD and DBD were found. Donors after controlled circulatory death with NRP can increasingly be utilized with safety, improving the imbalance between organ donors and the ever-growing demand.

Successful outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with acute kidney injuryon temporary renal replacement therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with severe acute kidney injury requiring acute renal replacement therapy (RRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 172 recipients received a kidney from donors with acute kidney injury stage 3 (AKIN3) requiring RRT. We compared the study group to 528 recipients who received a kidney from donors with AKIN stage 3 not on RRT and 463 recipients who received < 85% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) AKIN stage 0 kidney.

RESULTS

The study group donors were younger compared to the 2 control groups. Despite higher DGF in the study group, the length of hospital stay and acute rejection were similar. Death censored graft survival (96% AKIN3-RRT vs. 97%AKIN3 no RRT vs. 96% KDPI < 85% AKIN0, P = 0.26) and patient survival with functioning graft at 1 year (95% across all groups, P = 0.402) were similar. The estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar across the 3 groups after first month. Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy score ≥ 2 on protocol biopsy at time 0, 4 and 12 months were similar. Primary nonfunction was rare and associated with high KDPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplanting selected kidneys from deceased donors with AKIN3 requiring RRT is safe and has good outcomes.

Recommendations for Donor and Recipient Selection and Risk Prediction: Working Group Report From the ILTS Consensus Conference in DCD Liver Transplantation

Although the utilization of donation after circulatory death donors (DCDs) for liver transplantation (LT) has increased steadily, much controversy remains, and no common acceptance criteria exist with regard to donor and recipient risk factors and prediction models. A consensus conference was organized by International Liver Transplantation Society on January 31, 2020, in Venice, Italy, to review the current clinical practice worldwide regarding DCD-LT and to develop internationally accepted guidelines. The format of the conference was based on the grade system. International experts in this field were allocated to 6 working groups and prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. Working group members and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and recommendations provided by working group 2, covering the entire spectrum of donor and recipient risk factors and prediction models in DCD-LT.

Current and Evolving Indications for Simultaneous Liver Kidney Transplantation

This review will discuss the etiologies of kidney disease in liver transplant candidates, provide a historical background of the prior evolution of simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplant indications, discuss the current indications for SLK including Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policies and Model for End Stage Liver Disease exception points, as well as provide an overview of the safety net kidney transplant policy. Finally, the authors explore unanswered questions and future research needed in SLK transplantation.

Delayed kidney transplantation in combined liver-kidney transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the impact of delayed kidney transplantation approach in combined (simultaneous) liver-kidney transplantation (CLKT).

RECENT FINDINGS

CLKT offers a life-saving procedure for patients with both end-stage liver disease and chronic kidney disease or prolonged acute kidney injury. It is the most common multiorgan transplant procedure in the US accounting for 9-10% of all liver transplants performed. The number of CLKT has also been increasing in other countries with a better understanding of hepato-renal syndrome. US is the only country which implemented a national allocation policy for CLKT in 2017. Due to the different physiological needs of liver and kidney allografts immediately after transplantation, delayed kidney transplantation approach in CLKT has been introduced for the first time by the Indiana Group, naming it as 'the Indiana Approach'. Over the years, many other groups in the US and in Europe published better outcomes in CLKT using the delayed kidney transplantation approach with the support of hypothermic machine perfusion.

SUMMARY

Several groups have shown that delayed kidney transplantation in CLKT is a safe procedure with better outcomes in graft(s) and patient survival.