Life expectancy without a transplant for status 1A liver transplant candidates

Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of High- and Low-Quality Donor Livers for Patients with High-Acuity Illness

BACKGROUND Patients with high-acuity liver failure have increased access to marginal and split liver options, owing to historically high waitlist mortality rates. While most research states that donor liver quality has no impact on patients with high-acuity illness, there have been inconsistencies in recent research on how liver quality impacts post-transplant outcomes for these patients. We aimed to quantify donor liver quality with various post-transplantation patient outcomes for patients with high-acuity illness. MATERIAL AND METHODS Using the liver donor risk index (LDRI), model for end stage liver disease (MELD), and clinically relevant recipient factors, we used multivariate logistic regression to analyze how donor liver quality affects varying measures of patient outcomes for 9923 high-acuity patients from June 18, 2013, to June 18, 2022. RESULTS Using LDRI, high-quality livers had a significant protective impact on high-acuity patient mortality, compared with low-quality livers (OR=0.695 [0.549, 0.879], P=0.002). High-quality livers also had significant impact on graft survival (OR=0.706 [0.558, 0.894], P=0.004). Two sensitivity patient mortality analyses, excluding patients with status 1A and hepatocellular carcinoma, showed significant protective findings for high-quality livers. High-quality livers had insignificant outcomes on long-term survivor mortality, length of hospitalization, and primary non-function outcomes, compared with low-quality donor livers. CONCLUSIONS While our findings suggest donor quality has an impact on high-acuity patient outcomes, these findings indicate further research is needed in intent-to-treat analysis on clinical offer data to provide a clearer finding of how donor quality affects patients with high-acuity illness.

Sex-based Disparities in Access to Liver Transplantation for Waitlisted Patients With Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score of 40

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of sex with access to liver transplantation among candidates with the highest possible model for end-stage liver disease score (MELD 40).

BACKGROUND

Women with end-stage liver disease are less likely than men to receive liver transplantation due in part to MELD's underestimation of renal dysfunction in women. The extent of the sex-based disparity among patients with high disease severity and equally high MELD scores is unclear.

METHODS

Using national transplant registry data, we compared liver offer acceptance (offers received at match MELD 40) and waitlist outcomes (transplant vs death/delisting) by sex for 7654 waitlisted liver transplant candidates from 2009 to 2019 who reached MELD 40. Multivariable logistic and competing-risks regression was used to estimate the association of sex with the outcome and adjust for the candidate and donor factors.

RESULTS

Women (N = 3019, 39.4%) spent equal time active at MELD 40 (median: 5 vs 5 days, P = 0.28) but had lower offer acceptance (9.2% vs 11.0%, P < 0.01) compared with men (N = 4635, 60.6%). Adjusting for candidate/donor factors, offers to women were less likely accepted (odds ratio = 0.87, P < 0.01). Adjusting for candidate factors, once they reached MELD 40, women were less likely to be transplanted (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.90, P < 0.01) and more likely to die or be delisted (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.14, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Even among candidates with high disease severity and equally high MELD scores, women have reduced access to liver transplantation and worse outcomes compared with men. Policies addressing this disparity should consider factors beyond MELD score adjustments alone.