Liver transplantation in Italy: analysis of risk factors associated with graft outcome

Impact of recipients' socio-economic status on patient and graft survival after liver transplantation: the IsMeTT experience

AIM

We aimed to determine whether education level and socioeconomic status in a cohort of liver transplant recipients in the south of Italy were potential predictors of graft and patient survival.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 221 liver transplant recipients at Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad Alta Specializzazione between January 2006 and September 2009. Donor gender and age, cold ischaemic time, extended criteria donors, recipient age, gender, body mass index, primary aetiology, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, co-morbidities, patient health score assessed on the basis of clinical follow-up, highest level of education achieved, and socioeconomic status were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier analysis of survival measured by education level and socioeconomic status showed a higher survival rate in patients with higher education level (p=0.04) and socioeconomic status (p=0.01). After adjusting for all covariables, results of the multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that only socioeconomic status remained an independent and significant predictor of overall survival (Hazard Ratio=0.16, p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patient survival after liver transplantation was influenced by low income, low educational level, and lack of access to quality health care. Prospective clinical studies are necessary to fully identify the impact of socioeconomic status on long-term health outcomes, and to propose an evidence-based guide to clinical intervention.

Effect modification in liver allografts with prolonged cold ischemic time

Although prolonged cold ischemia time (PCIT) is generally associated with worse outcomes following liver transplantation, evidence suggests that some recipients and some donors might be more sensitive to PCIT than others. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that predict a higher risk of graft loss after a transplant with PCIT when compared with a similar transplant with average CIT (ACIT). 14 637 recipients reported to United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) era were studied by interaction term analysis in proportional hazards models. Recipient diabetes, obesity and donor African American (AA) ethnicity were found to significantly amplify the adverse effects of PCIT. Graft loss was 1.85-fold higher in diabetic or obese PCIT recipients compared with diabetic or obese ACIT recipients, (vs. 1.17 for the same comparison in non-diabetic non-obese recipients). Similarly, graft loss was 1.80-fold higher in AA PCIT donors compared with AA ACIT donors, (vs. 1.31 for the same comparison in non-AA donors). Other factors may also exist, but current clinical practices might already mitigate the risks from those factors. As such, we recommend expanding clinical practice to include our findings, but not abandoning current judgment based on factors already perceived to amplify the adverse effects of PCIT.

Minimizing risk associated with elderly liver donors by matching to preferred recipients

Elderly liver donors (ELDs) represent a possible expansion of the donor pool, although there is great reluctance to use ELDs because of reports that increasing donor age predicts graft loss and patient death. The goal of this study was to identify a subgroup of recipients who would be least affected by increased donor age and thus best suited to receive grafts from ELDs. A national registry of deceased donor liver transplants from 2002-2005 was analyzed. ELDs aged 70-92 (n = 1043) were compared with average liver donors (ALDs) aged 18-69 (n = 15,878) and ideal liver donors (ILDs) aged 18-39 (n = 6842). Recipient factors that modified the effect of donor age on outcomes were identified via interaction term analysis. Outcomes in recipient subgroups were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Recipients preferred for ELD transplants were determined to be first-time recipients over the age of 45 with body mass index <35, non-status 1 registration, cold ischemic time <8 hours, and either hepatocellular carcinoma or an indication for transplantation other than hepatitis C. In preferred recipients, there were no differences in outcomes when ELD livers were used (3-year graft survival: ELD 75%, ALD 75%, ILD 77%, P > 0.1; 3-year patient survival: ELD 81%, ALD 80%, ILD 81%, P > 0.1). In contrast, there were significantly worse outcomes when ELD livers were used in nonpreferred recipients (3-year graft survival: ELD 50%, ALD 71%, ILD 75%, P < 0.001; 3-year patient survival: ELD 64%, ALD 77%, ILD 80%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The risks of ELDs can be substantially minimized by appropriate recipient selection.

Allocation of nonstandard livers to transplant candidates with high MELD scores: Should this practice be continued?

MELD and PELD scores of 255 consecutive grafts were calculated (236 adult cases and 19 pediatric cases). No correction for the etiology of liver disease was performed. Retransplants were excluded. Three categories of patients were identified: low MELD (scores <12, n = 61); intermediate MELD (scores between 12-24, n = 159); high MELD (scores > or =25, n = 35). Grafts were categorized according to donor quality: standard livers (n = 199), vs nonstandard livers (n = 56). Nonstandard livers were identified by age > or =60, or at least by two of the following conditions: severe hemodynamic instability, ultrasound evidence of steatosis, natriemia > or =155 mEq/L, ICU stay >7 days, liver trauma, protracted anoxia as cause of brain death, transaminases levels x 4. In standard livers, the 12-month graft survival (GS) for low, intermediate, and high MELD classes were 88%, 74%, and 77%, respectively. In nonstandard livers, the 12-month GS for the low, intermediate, and high MELD classes were 84%, 55%, and 44%, respectively; differences between low MELD class and both intermediate and high MELD classes were significant (P < .05). Cox regression analysis of all cases identified the following parameters as independent predictors of GS: donor status; donor age; and recipient creatinine. The highest correlation with GS was found using donor age and recipient creatinine as covariates. In standard livers no variable was able to predict GS. In nonstandard livers the MELD-PELD score was the unique variable able to predict GS. We suggest avoiding the use of nonstandard livers for patients with high MELD scores.