Effect modification in liver allografts with prolonged cold ischemic time

Logistical burden of offers and allocation inefficiency in circle-based liver allocation

Recent changes to liver allocation replaced donor service areas with circles as the geographic unit of allocation. Circle-based allocation might increase the number of transplantation centers and candidates required to place a liver, thereby increasing the logistical burden of making and responding to offers on organ procurement organizations and transplantation centers. Circle-based allocation might also increase distribution time and cold ischemia time (CIT), particularly in densely populated areas of the country, thereby decreasing allocation efficiency. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data from 2019 to 2021, we evaluated the number of transplantation centers and candidates required to place livers in the precircles and postcircles eras, nationally and by donor region. Compared with the precircles era, livers were offered to more candidates (5 vs. 9; p  < 0.001) and centers (3 vs. 5; p  < 0.001) before being accepted; more centers were involved in the match run by offer number 50 (9 vs. 14; p  < 0.001); CIT increased by 0.2 h (5.9 h vs. 6.1 h; p  < 0.001); and distribution time increased by 2.0 h (30.6 h vs. 32.6 h; p  < 0.001). Increased burden varied geographically by donor region; livers recovered in Region 9 were offered to many more candidates (4 vs. 12; p  < 0.001) and centers (3 vs. 8; p  < 0.001) before being accepted, resulting in the largest increase in CIT (5.4 h vs. 6.0 h; p  < 0.001). Circle-based allocation is associated with increased logistical burdens that are geographically heterogeneous. Continuous distribution systems will have to be carefully designed to avoid exacerbating this problem.

Donor Skeletal Muscle Quality Affects Graft Mortality After Living Donor Liver Transplantation- A Single Center, Retrospective Study

The recipient muscle status is closely associated with postoperative poor survival in recipients of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). However, it is uncertain whether LDLT donor muscle quality and quantity affect graft quality. Hence, we analyzed the correlation between donor muscle status and graft function. We measured the skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) and intramuscular adipose tissue content (IMAC) of 380 LDLT donors. We examined the correlation between donor SMI or IMAC and graft mortality, the occurrence rates of small-for-size graft (SFSG) syndrome, and 6-month graft survival rates. The donor SMI had no effect on the occurrence of SFSG syndrome and graft survival, while a high IMAC in both male and female donors was significantly correlated with the rate of SFSG syndrome [high vs low: (male donors) 15.8% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.0003; (female donors) 12.8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.0234] and 6-month graft survival rates [(male donors) 87.7% vs 95.9%, p = 0.02; (female donors) 83.0% vs. 99.0%, p < 0.0001]. Multivariate analysis revealed that a high donor IMAC (HR; 5.42, CI; 2.13-13.8, p = 0.0004) was an independent risk factor for 6-month graft survival, and the donor IMAC is useful for donor selection for high-risk recipients.

Up-regulated LRRN2 expression as a marker for graft quality in living donor liver transplantation

The quality and size of liver grafts are critical factors that influence living‐donor liver transplantation (LDLT) function and safety. However, the biomarkers used for predicting graft quality are lacking. In this study, we sought to identify unique graft quality markers, aside from donor age, by using the livers of non‐human primates. Hepatic gene microarray expression data from young and elderly cynomolgus macaques revealed a total of 271 genes with significantly increased expression in the elderly. These candidate genes were then narrowed down to six through bioinformatics analyses. The expression patterns of these candidate genes in human donor liver tissues were subsequently examined. Importantly, we found that grafts exhibiting up‐regulated expression of these six candidate genes were associated with an increased incidence of liver graft failure. Multivariable analysis further revealed that up‐regulated expression of LRRN2 (encoding leucine‐rich repeat protein, neuronal 2) in donor liver tissue served as an independent risk factor for graft failure (odds ratio 4.50, confidence interval 2.08–9.72). Stratification based on graft expression of LRRN2 and donor age was also significantly associated with 6‐month graft survival rates. Conclusion: Up‐regulated LRRN2 expression of liver graft is significantly correlated with graft failure in LDLT. In addition, combination of graft LRRN2 expression and donor age may represent a promising marker for predicting LDLT graft quality.

Implications of liver donor age on ischemia reperfusion injury and clinical outcomes

The aging process causes detrimental changes in a variety of organ systems. These changes include: lesser ability to cope with stress, impaired repair mechanisms and decreased cellular functional reserve capacity. Not surprisingly, aging has been associated with increased susceptibility of donor heart and kidneys grafts to ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI). In the context of liver transplantation, however, the effect of donor age seems to be less influential in predisposing the graft to IRI. In fact, a widely comprehensive understanding of IRI in the aged liver has yet to be agreed upon in the literature. Nevertheless, there have been many reported implications of increased liver donor age with poor clinical outcomes besides IRI. These other poor outcomes include: earlier HCV recurrence, increased rates of acute rejection and greater resistance to tolerance induction. While these other correlations have been identified, it is important to re-emphasize the fact that a unified consensus in regard to liver donor age and IRI has not yet been reached among researchers in this field. Many researchers have even demonstrated that the extent of IRI in aged livers can be ameliorated by careful donor selection, strict allocation or novel therapeutic modalities to decrease IRI. Thus, the goals of this review paper are twofold: 1) To delineate and summarize the conflicting data in regard to liver donor age and IRI. 2) Suggest that careful donor selection, appropriate allocation and strategic effort to minimize IRI can reduce the frequency of a variety of poor outcomes with aged liver donations.

Obesity in the Liver Transplant Setting

The obesity epidemic has resulted in an increased prevalence of obesity in liver transplant (LT) candidates and in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) becoming the fastest growing indication for LT. LT teams will be dealing with obesity in the coming years, and it is necessary for them to recognize some key aspects surrounding the LT in obese patients. Obesity by itself should not be considered a contraindication for LT, but it should make LT teams pay special attention to cardiovascular risk assessment, in order to properly select candidates for LT. Obese patients may be at increased risk of perioperative respiratory and infectious complications, and it is necessary to establish preventive strategies. Data on patient and graft survival after LT are controversial and scarce, especially for long-term outcomes, but morbid obesity may adversely affect these outcomes, particularly in NAFLD. The backbone of obesity treatment should be diet and exercise, whilst being careful not to precipitate or worsen frailty and sarcopenia. Bariatric surgery is an alternative for treatment of obesity, and the ideal timing regarding LT is still unknown. Sleeve gastrectomy is probably the procedure that has the best evidence in LT because it offers a good balance between safety and efficacy.

A comparison of desensitization methods: Rituximab with/without plasmapheresis in ABO-incompatible living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Plasmapheresis is a desensitization method used prior to ABO-incompatible (ABO-I) living donor liver transplantation. However, studies on its usefulness in the rituximab era are lacking.

METHODS

Fifty-six adult patients underwent ABO-I living donor liver transplantation between January 2012 and October 2015. A single dose of rituximab (300 mg/m²) was administered 2 weeks before surgery with plasmapheresis in all patients until February 2014 (RP group, n = 26). Patients were administered rituximab only, without plasmapheresis between March 2014 and October 2015 (RO group, n = 30).

RESULTS

The 6-, 12- and 18-month overall survival rates were 92.3%, 80.8% and 76.9% in the RP group and 96.6%, 85.4% and 85.4% in the RO group, respectively (P = 0.574). When the initial isoagglutinin titers < 16, neither group showed a rebound rise of isoagglutinin titers. For patients with initial isoagglutinin titers ≥ 16, the rebound rise of isoagglutinin titers was more prominent in the RP group. There was no difference in time-dependent changes in B cell subpopulations and ABO-I-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Sufficient desensitization for ABO-I living donor liver transplantation can be achieved using rituximab alone. This desensitization strategy does not affect the isoagglutinin titers, ABO-I-related complications and patient survival.

Donor Diabetes and Prolonged Cold Ischemia Time Synergistically Increase the Risk of Graft Failure After Liver Transplantation

Background

Both prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) and donor history of diabetes mellitus (DM) are associated with reduced graft survival after liver transplantation. However, it is unknown whether the adverse effect of prolonged CIT on posttransplant graft survival is more pronounced after transplant with DM versus non-DM donor grafts.

Methods

The study sample included 58 226 liver transplant recipients (2002-2015) from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Multivariable Cox survival regression with interaction analysis was used to quantify the extent to which history of donor DM (n = 6478) potentiates the adverse effect of prolonged (≥8 hours) CIT (n = 18 287) on graft survival.

Results

Donor DM and CIT 8 hours or longer were each associated with increased risk of graft failure (GF) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.35 and aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.32-1.53, respectively) compared with transplanted grafts without either risk factor. However, the combination of DM and CIT 8 hours or longer was associated with a higher risk of GF than either factor alone (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.06) and had a synergy index of 1.30. The interaction was significant on a multiplicative scale in the later postoperative period, days 31 to 365 (P = 0.047).

Conclusions

These results suggest that liver grafts from DM donors are more susceptible to the adverse effects of prolonged CIT than livers from non-DM donors. We need to be cognizant that they are more susceptible to ischemic injury, and this may be considered during the allocation process.

Donor information based prediction of early allograft dysfunction and outcome in liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Poor initial graft function was recently newly defined as early allograft dysfunction (EAD) [Olthoff KM, Kulik L, Samstein B, et al. Validation of a current definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients and analysis of risk factors. Liver Transpl 2010; 16: 943]. Aim of this analysis was to evaluate predictive donor information for development of EAD.

METHODS

Six hundred and seventy-eight consecutive adult patients (mean age 51.6 years; 60.3% men) who received a primary liver transplantation (LT) (09/2003-12/2011) were included. Standard donor data were correlated with EAD and outcome by univariable/multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards to identify prognostic donor factors after adjustment for recipient confounders. Estimates of relevant factors were utilized for construction of a new continuous risk index to develop EAD.

RESULTS

38.7% patients developed EAD. 30-day survival of grafts with and without EAD was 59.8% and 89.7% (P < 0.0001). 30-day survival of patients with and without EAD was 68.5% and 93.1% (P < 0.0001) respectively. Donor body mass index (P = 0.0112), gGT (P = 0.0471), macrosteatosis (P = 0.0006) and cold ischaemia time (CIT) (P = 0.0031) were predictors of EAD. Internal cross validation showed a high predictive value (c-index = 0.622).

CONCLUSIONS

Early allograft dysfunction correlates with early results of LT and can be predicted by donor data only. The newly introduced risk index potentially optimizes individual decisions to accept/decline high risk organs. Outcome of these organs might be improved by shortening CIT.

Impact of broader sharing on the transport time for deceased donor livers

Recent allocation policy changes have increased the sharing of deceased donor livers across local boundaries, and sharing even broader than this has been proposed as a remedy for persistent geographic disparities in liver transplantation. It is possible that broader sharing may increase cold ischemia times (CITs) and thus harm recipients. We constructed a detailed model of transport modes (car, helicopter, and fixed-wing aircraft) and transport times between all hospitals, and we investigated the relationship between the transport time and the CIT for deceased donor liver transplants. The median estimated transport time was 2.0 hours for regionally shared livers and 1.0 hour for locally allocated livers. The model-predicted transport mode was flying for 90% of regionally shared livers but for only 22% of locally allocated livers. The median CIT was 7.0 hours for regionally shared livers and 6.0 hours for locally allocated livers. Variation in the transport time accounted for only 14.7% of the variation in the CIT, and the transport time on average composed only 21% of the CIT. In conclusion, nontransport factors play a substantially larger role in the CIT than the transport time. Broader sharing will have only a marginal impact on the CIT but will significantly increase the fraction of transplants that are transported by flying rather than driving.

Predictors of intra-abdominal coagulopathic hemorrhage after living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Results of preoperative conventional coagulation assays are a poor predictor of hemorrhage after liver transplantation. In this study, we evaluated the factors that are predictive of intra-abdominal coagulopathic hemorrhage after living donor liver transplantation surgery.

METHODS

During the period from January 2009 to December 2012, 118 adults underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in our institution. Of those patients, 18 (15.3%) developed intra-abdominal coagulopathic hemorrhage (n = 7) or hemorrhage due to non-coagulopathic causes (n = 11) that required emergency medical, radiological, or surgical intervention within the first month after LDLT. Possible predictors of postoperative coagulopathic hemorrhage included donor-related factors, age, body mass index, MELD score, INR value, intra-operative blood transfusion, graft/recipient weight ratio, anhepatic phase, cold ischemia time, operative time, APACHE II score, onset of re-bleeding, and hemoglobin levels during rebleeding episodes.

RESULTS

There were no differences in any of the variables between the two groups (coagulopathic and noncoagulopathic hemorrhage) except for cold ischemia time. We found that cold ischemia time was significantly longer in patients with postoperative coagulopathic hemorrhage (160.50 ± 45.02 min) than in patients with hemorrhage due to non-coagulopathic causes (113.55 ± 29.31 min; P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Prolonged cold ischemia time is associated with postoperative intra-abdominal coagulopathic hemorrhage in patients after LDLT. It is, therefore, necessary to shorten the cold ischemia time in order to reduce the risk of postoperative intra-abdominal hemorrhage due to coagulopathic causes.

The aggressive phenotype revisited: utilization of higher-risk liver allografts

Organ shortage has led to increased utilization of higher risk liver allografts. In kidneys, aggressive center-level use of one type of higher risk graft clustered with aggressive use of other types. In this study, we explored center-level behavior in liver utilization. We aggregated national liver transplant recipient data between 2005 and 2009 to the center-level, assigning each center an aggressiveness score based on relative utilization of higher risk livers. Aggressive centers had significantly more patients reaching high MELDs (RR 2.19, 2.33 and 2.28 for number of patients reaching MELD>20, MELD>25 and MELD>30, p<0.001), a higher organ shortage ratio (RR 1.51, 1.60 and 1.51 for number of patients reaching MELD>20, MELD>25 and MELD>30 divided by number of organs recovered at the OPO, p<0.04), and were clustered within various geographic regions, particularly regions 2, 3 and 9. Median MELD at transplant was similar between aggressive and nonaggressive centers, but average annual transplant volume was significantly higher at aggressive centers (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.47-3.51, p<0.001). In cluster analysis, there were no obvious phenotypic patterns among centers with intermediate levels of aggressiveness. In conclusion, highwaitlist disease severity, geographic differences in organ availability, and transplant volume are the main factors associated with the aggressive utilization of higher risk livers.

Institutional volume and the effect of recipient risk on short-term mortality after orthotopic heart transplant

OBJECTIVE

We developed a validated 50-point recipient risk index predicting short-term mortality after orthotopic heart transplant (OHT). This study examined the relationship between institutional volume and recipient risk on post-OHT mortality.

METHODS

We used United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data to identify primary OHT recipients between January 2000 and April 2010. Centers were stratified by mean annual volume. Preoperative Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation risk scores were calculated for each patient with our validated 50-point system. Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year survivals. Multivariable logistic regression analysis included interaction terms to examine effect modification of risk and volume on mortality.

RESULTS

In all, 18,226 patients underwent transplant at 141 centers: 1173 (6.4%) recipients at low-volume centers (<7 procedures/y), 5353 (29.4%) at medium-volume centers (7-15 procedures/y), and 11,700 (64.2%) at high-volume centers (>15 procedures/y). Low center volume was associated with worse 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.92; P < .001). For 1-year survival, there was significant positive interaction between center volume and recipient risk score (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.07; P = .02), indicating effect of risk on mortality at low-volume centers greater than from either variable analyzed individually. Among high-risk recipients (score ≥10), 1-year survival was improved at high-volume centers (high, 79%; medium, 75%; low, 64%).

CONCLUSIONS

In analysis of UNOS data with our validated recipient risk index, institutional volume acted as an effect modifier on association between risk and mortality. High-risk patients had higher mortality at low-volume centers; differences dissipated among lower-risk recipients. These data support a mandate for high-risk transplants at higher-volume centers.

The Right Organ for the Right Recipient: the Ninth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons' State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium

With an increasing number of individuals with end-stage organ disease and the increasing success of organ transplantation, the demand for transplants has steadily increased. This growth has led to a greater need to utilize organs from as many donors as possible. As selection criteria have become less stringent to accommodate increasing demand, transplant outcomes are more strongly influenced by recipient and donor factors; thus, finding the right organ for the right recipient is more important than ever. The Ninth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium, entitled "The Right Organ for the Right Recipient," addressed the matching of donor organs to appropriate recipients. Representative dilemmas in the matching of donor organs with recipients were discussed. These included the following: matching by donor and recipient risk characteristics; use of organs with risk for disease transmission; biologic incompatibility; use of organs from donors after cardiac death; the justification for combined organ transplants like liver-kidney and kidney-pancreas; and the role of allocation in facilitating the matching of donors and recipients. Regardless of the particular issue, decisions about donor-recipient matching should be evidence-based, practical, and made with the goal of maximizing organ utilization while still protecting individual patient interests.

Liver grafts from selected older donors do not have significantly more ischaemia reperfusion injury

BACKGROUND

There is a general concern that aged organs are more susceptible to ischaemia. In the light of recent proposals to change the liver allocation system by expanding regional sharing, it is feared that increased cold ischaemia time of grafts from older donors may reduce graft survival. The aim of this study was to correlate donor age and the patterns of ischaemia reperfusion injury and synthetic function early after liver transplantation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of first transplants using a single-centre electronic database. Patterns of liver injury (based on transaminases and post-reperfusion biopsy), synthetic function (international normalized ratio [INR]), and graft and patient survival in recipients receiving liver grafts from donors aged ≥ 65 years (group 1, n= 50) were compared with equivalent patterns in a matched cohort of recipients transplanted with grafts from donors aged <65 years (group 2, n= 50).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in transaminase levels from day 0 to day 6 after transplantation. When groups 1 and 2 were subdivided into two subgroups based on the duration of graft cold ischaemia time (<8 h and ≥ 8 h), there was no statistical difference in transaminase levels during the first 7 days. There were two cases (4%) of primary non-function in group 1 and one (2%) in group 2. Initial poor function did not differ significantly between the groups (26% vs. 24%; P= 0.81). In addition, there was no difference in histological changes in post-reperfusion biopsies (21% vs. 34%; P= 0.078) and rate of acute rejection episodes in the first year (30% vs. 32%; P= 0.99). There was no significant difference between groups 1 and 2 in 1-year patient and graft survivals (78% vs. 90% [P= 0.17]; 88% vs. 94% [P= 0.48], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Judiciously selected livers from aged donors are not associated with major increased susceptibility to ischaemia reperfusion injury.

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.

Management of posttransplant hepatitis C infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the leading cause of liver transplantation. Outcome of HCV-associated liver transplantation has been worse than transplantation from other causes. This is mostly related to universal recurrence of HCV in the allograft leading to graft and patient loss or retransplantation. Current antiviral therapies (AVTs) are inadequate and ineffective in the vast majority of the patients with intolerable side effects in most. However, a sustained virologic response (SVR) is associated with improved graft and patient survival. New specifically targeted AVTs for HCV (STAT-C) agents in development will significantly improve the success of AVT. This review focuses on recent data in peritransplant management of HCV with special emphasis on predictors of outcome, diagnosis, prevention and control of reinfection with newer treatments on the horizon.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the immediate pretransplant setting, AVT should be considered in select patients to eradicate the virus. Careful donor selection, immunosuppression (IMS) modulation with steroid and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) minimization, avoidance of T-cell-depleting treatments and acute rejection episodes, and control of metabolic syndrome can improve allograft outcomes and improve the response to AVT. AVT prior to significant damage to the allograft is strongly recommended.

SUMMARY

With modified novel IMS protocols, careful donor selection, and AVT prior to significant damage to the allograft we can improve the outcome of posttransplant hepatitis C infection. Albeit there are no available data on new antiviral agents, STAT-Cs will have a significant impact in this setting in the near future.

Liver transplantation for hepatitis B and C virus-related cirrhosis: mid-term results

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is almost universal; cirrhosis develops in up to 30% of cases. Currently there is interest in the midterm outcomes of HCV patients with concomitant hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection among OLT recipients. We therefore retrospectively analyzed our database of patients who underwent OLT for HCV-HBV-related cirrhosis. Between April 1992 and December 2008, 350 patients underwent OLT, including 20 (5.7%) transplanted for HBV-HCV cirrhosis. We assessed patient and graft survivals at 1 and 5 years, as well as the progression of fibrosis. Protocol liver biopsies were available yearly after OLT. The survival curves were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier approach and chronic hepatitis evaluated according to the Ishak scoring system. At a median follow-up of 68.4 +/- 53 months, the 1- and 5-year patient and graft survival rates were 80% and 70%, respectively. The 5-year fibrosis progression rate was 0.17 +/- 0.08 units of fibrosis. The only patient who developed histologic cirrhosis within 10 years of follow-up showed a lamivudine-resistant HBV recurrence. Patients transplanted for HBV-HCV coinfection showed a lower fibrosis progression rate compared with HCV monoinfected subjects.

Nucleic acid testing (NAT) of organ donors: is the 'best' test the right test? A consensus conference report

Nucleic acid testing (NAT) for HIV, HBV and HCV shortens the time between infection and detection by available testing. A group of experts was selected to develop recommendations for the use of NAT in the HIV/HBV/HCV screening of potential organ donors. The rapid turnaround times needed for donor testing and the risk of death while awaiting transplantation make organ donor screening different from screening blood-or tissue donors. In donors with no identified risk factors, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine NAT, as the benefits of NAT may not outweigh the disadvantages of NAT especially when false-positive results can lead to loss of donor organs. For donors with identified behavioral risk factors, NAT should be considered to reduce the risk of transmission and increase organ utilization. Informed consent balancing the risks of donor-derived infection against the risk of remaining on the waiting list should be obtained at the time of candidate listing and again at the time of organ offer. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to recommend universal prospective screening of organ donors for HIV, HCV and HBV using current NAT platforms. Further study of viral screening modalities may reduce disease transmission risk without excessive donor loss.