Allocation procedure has no impact on patient and graft outcome after liver transplantation

Cold ischemia time in liver transplantation: An overview

The standard approach to organ preservation in liver transplantation is by static cold storage and the time between the cross-clamping of a graft in a donor and its reperfusion in the recipient is defined as cold ischemia time (CIT). This simple definition reveals a multifactorial time frame that depends on donor hepatectomy time, transit time, and recipient surgery time, and is one of the most important donor-related risk factors which may influence the graft and recipient's survival. Recently, the growing demand for the use of marginal liver grafts has prompted scientific exploration to analyze ischemia time factors and develop different organ preservation strategies. This review details the CIT definition and analyzes its different factors. It also explores the most recent strategies developed to implement each timestamp of CIT and to protect the graft from ischemic injury.

Early- and long-term outcomes of liver transplantation with rescue allocation grafts

In France, liver grafts which have been refused by at least five centers are proposed as rescue allocation (RA). The aim of this study is to clarify the feasibility and safety of RA grafts in liver transplantation (LT). Short- and long-term outcomes of patients who received RA grafts (RA group) were compared with those of patients who received standard allocation (SA) grafts (SA group). From a total of 1635 patients, 102 patients received RA grafts. Before matching, the RA group was characterized primarily by less severe liver disease, but the quality of graft was worse. After matching recipients' characteristics of 102 patients who used RA grafts with 306 patients who used SA grafts, recipients' characteristics were well balanced (1:3 matching). Although the rate of primary dysfunction was significantly higher in the RA group, there is no significant difference in the occurrence of major complications, length of hospitalization, and mortality between two groups. Graft survival (GS) and overall survival (OS) in the RA group were not significantly different from the SA group (GS; HR = 1.03 P = .89, OS; HR = 1.03 P = .90). In the French allocation system, the feasibility and safety of RA grafts might be comparable to SA grafts for carefully selected patients.

Should we use liver grafts repeatedly refused by other transplant teams?

Background & Aims

In France, liver grafts that have been refused at least 5 times can be “rescued” and allocated to a centre which chooses a recipient from its own waiting list, outside the patient-based allocation framework. We explored whether these “rescued” grafts were associated with worse graft/patient survival, as well as assessing their effect on survival benefit.

Methods

Among 7,895 candidates, 5,218 were transplanted between 2009 and 2014 (336 centre-allocated). We compared recipient/graft survival between patient allocation and centre allocation, considering a selection bias and the distribution of centre-allocation recipients among the transplant teams. We used a propensity score approach and a weighted Cox model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. We also explored the survival benefit associated with centre-allocation grafts.

Results

There was a significantly higher risk of graft loss/death in the centre allocation group compared to the patient allocation group (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 1.05–1.22). However, this difference was no longer significant for teams that performed more than 7% of the centre-allocation transplantations. Moreover, receiving a centre-allocation graft, compared to remaining on the waiting list and possibly later receiving a patient-allocation graft, did not convey a poorer survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.60–1.08).

Conclusions

In centres which transplanted most of the centre-allocation grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates was not detrimental. Given the organ shortage, our findings should encourage policy makers to restrict centre-allocation grafts to targeted centres.

Lay summary

“Centre allocation” (CA) made it possible to save 6 out of 100 available liver grafts that had been refused at least 5 times for use in the top-listed candidates on the national waiting list. In this series, the largest on this topic, we showed that, in centres which transplanted most of the CA grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates did not appear to be detrimental. In the context of organ shortage, our results, which could be of interest for any country using this CA strategy, should encourage policy makers to reassess some aspects of graft allocation by restricting CA grafts to targeted centres, fostering the “best” matching between grafts and candidates on the waiting list.

•

Centre allocation (CA) made it possible to save 6 out of 100 liver grafts.

•

13% higher graft loss/death for CA patients.

•

In transplant centres performing most CA transplants, survival was not impacted.

Use of Organs for Heart Transplantation after Rescue Allocation: Comparison of Outcome with Regular Allocated High Urgent Recipients

BACKGROUND

 The number of patients waiting for heart transplantation (HTx) is exceeding the number of actual transplants. Subsequently, waiting times are increasing. One possible solution may be an increased acceptance of organs after rescue allocation. These organs had been rejected by at least three consecutive transplant centers due to medical reasons.

METHODS

 Between October 2010 and July 2019, a total of 139 patients underwent HTx in our department. Seventy (50.4%) of the 139 patients were transplanted with high urgency (HU) status and regular allocation (HU group); the remaining received organs without HU listing after rescue allocation (elective group, n = 69).

RESULTS

 Donor parameters were comparable between the groups. Thirty-day mortality was comparable between HU patients (11.4%) and rescue allocation (12.1%). Primary graft dysfunction with extracorporeal life support occurred in 26.9% of the elective group with rescue allocated organs, which was not inferior to the regular allocated organs (HU group: 35.7%). No significant differences were observed regarding the incidence of common perioperative complications as well as morbidity and mortality during 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

 Our data support the use of hearts after rescue allocation for elective transplantation of patients without HU status. We could show that patients with rescue allocated organs showed no significant disadvantages in the early perioperative morbidity and mortality as well at 1-year follow-up.

The Differential Influence of Cold Ischemia Time on Outcome After Liver Transplantation for Different Indications-Who Is at Risk? A Collaborative Transplant Study Report

Introduction: Despite increasing awareness of the negative impact of cold ischemia time (CIT) in liver transplantation, its precise influence in different subgroups of liver transplant recipients has not been analyzed in detail. This study aimed to identify liver transplant recipients with an unfavorable outcome due to prolonged cold ischemia. Methods: 40,288 adult liver transplantations, performed between 1998 and 2017 and reported to the Collaborative Transplant Study were analyzed. Results: Prolonged CIT significantly reduced graft and patient survival only during the first post-transplant year. On average, each hour added to the cold ischemia was associated with a 3.4% increase in the risk of graft loss (hazard ratio (HR) 1.034, P < 0.001). The impact of CIT was strongest in patients with hepatitis C-related (HCV) cirrhosis with a 24% higher risk of graft loss already at 8-9 h (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.47, P = 0.011) and 64% higher risk at ≥14 h (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30-2.09, P < 0.001). In contrast, patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) and alcoholic cirrhosis tolerated longer ischemia times up to <10 and <12 h, respectively, without significant impact on graft survival (P = 0.47 and 0.42). In HCC patients with model of end-stage liver disease scores (MELD) <20, graft survival was not significantly impaired in the cases of CIT up to 13 h. Conclusion: The negative influence of CIT on liver transplant outcome depends on the underlying disease, patients with HCV-related cirrhosis being at the highest risk of graft loss due to prolonged cold ischemia. Grafts with longer cold preservation times should preferentially be allocated to recipients with alcoholic cirrhosis and HCC patients with MELD <20, in whom the effect of cold ischemia is less pronounced.

Liver Transplantation with "Hors Tour" Allocated Versus Standard MELD Allocated Grafts: Single-Center Audit and Impact on the Liver Pool in France

BACKGROUND

The French transplant governing system defined "Rescue" (the so-called "Hors Tour") livers as those livers which were declined for the five top-listed patients. This study compares the outcomes following liver transplantation (LT) in patients who received a donor liver through a rescue allocation (RA) procedure or according to MELD score priority (standard allocation, SA) and evaluates the impact on the graft pool of a proactive policy to accept RA grafts.

METHODS

Data from all consecutive patients who underwent LT with SA or RA grafts from 2011 to 2015 were compared in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

The 249 elective first LTs were performed with 64 (25.7%) RA and 185 (74.3%) SA grafts. RA grafts were obtained from older donors and were associated with a longer cold ischemia time. Recipients of RA livers were older and had lower MELD scores. The rates of delayed graft function, primary nonfunction, retransplantation, complications, and mortality were similar between the RA and SA groups. At 1 and 3 and 5 years, graft and patient survival rates were similar between the groups. These results were maintained after matching on recipient characteristics. Our proactive policy to accept RA grafts increased the liver pool for elective first transplantation by 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

RA livers can be safely transplanted into selected recipients and significantly expand the liver pool.

Recipient Selection for Optimal Utilization of Discarded Grafts in Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

In France, liver grafts that have been refused by at least 5 teams are considered for rescue allocation (RA), with the choice of the recipient being at the team's discretion. Although this system permits the use of otherwise discarded grafts in a context of organ shortage, outcomes and potential benefits need to be assessed.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2015, outcomes of RA grafts (n = 33) were compared with SA grafts (n = 321) at a single French center.

RESULTS

Liver grafts in the RA group were older (63 ± 17 years vs 54 ± 18 years, P = 0.007) and had a higher DRI (1.86 ± 0.45 vs 1.61 ± 0.47, P = 0.010). Recipients in this group had a lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (14 ± 5 vs 22 ± 10, P < 0.001) and had mostly hepatocellular carcinoma (67.0% vs 40.4%, P = 0.010). The balance of risk score was significantly lower in the RA group (5.5 ± 2.9 vs 9.2 ± 5.5, P < 0.001). There were higher rates of early and delayed hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2% vs 3.1%, P = 0.001) and retransplantation (18.2% vs 4.7%, P = 0.002) in the RA group. Patient survival was not different between groups, but graft survival was impaired (95% vs 82% at 1 year and 94% vs 74% at 3 years, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that discarded liver grafts can be used provided that there is a strict recipient selection process, although hepatic artery thrombosis and retransplantation are more frequent. This strategy enables utilization of otherwise discarded grafts in the context of organ shortage.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Donor selection criteria for liver transplantation in Argentina: are current standards too rigorous?

Organ shortage is the major limitation for the growth of deceased donor liver transplant worldwide. One strategy to ameliorate this problem is to maximize the liver utilization rate. To assess predictors of liver utilization in Argentina. The national database was used to analyze transplant activity in 2010. Donor, recipient, and transplant variables were evaluated as predictors of graft utilization of number of rejected donor offers before grafting and with the occurrence of primary nonfunction (PNF) or early post-transplant mortality (EM). Of the 582 deceased donors, 293 (50.3%) were recovered for liver transplant. Variables associated with the nonrecovery of the liver were age ≥46 years, umbilical perimeter ≥92 cm, organ procurement outside Gran Buenos Aires, AST ≥42 U/l and ALT ≥29 U/l. The median number of rejected offers before grafting was 4, and in 71 patients (25%), there were ≥13. The only independent predictor for the occurrence of PNF (3.4%) or EM (5.2%) was the recipient's emergency status. During 2010 in Argentina, the liver was recovered in only half of donors. The low incidence of PNF and EM and the characteristics of the nonrecovered liver donors suggest that organ acceptance criteria should be less rigorous.