Implications of drug intoxication on donor utilization and outcomes in liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the implications of drug intoxication (DI) on donor utilization and outcomes in liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

The UNOS STAR database was evaluated for all potential donors and adult, first-time, whole LT between 2005 and 2019. Logistic regression analyses evaluated liver utilization; proportional hazards modeling assessed risk of 1-year graft loss.

RESULTS

A total of 132 783 potential donors (10 205, 7.7% from DI), and 90 612 adult LT were identified (7490, 8.3% from DI). DI donors had median age 32 years (IQR 26-40 years, p < .001), were 42.6% female (n = 4346), and 15.5% were DCD donors (n = 1583). Utilization of DI donors changed over time, such that by 2015-2019 they were the most likely donor cause of death (COD) to be utilized. Among LT recipients, there were insignificant differences (<2% variance) in age, gender, ethnicity, and etiology of liver disease according to donor COD. Recipients with MELD scores >30 more frequently received grafts from donors with trauma (23.8%) and DI (21.8%) versus cardiovascular (20.0%) and CVA/stroke (19.9%, p < .001). Among DBD donors, DI-COD was associated with superior 1-year graft survival compared to donors from trauma (HR 1.172, 95% CI 1.057-1.300) and CVA/stroke (HR 1.404, 95% CI 1.264-1.561, p < .001). Donor COD was not significantly associated with 1-year graft loss among DCD donors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increased likelihood of donor utilization when COD is drug overdose and an increased likelihood of 1-year graft survival compared to donors from trauma, CVA/stroke, and other COD.

Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization

Liver allocation policy was changed to reduce variance in median MELD scores at transplant (MMaT) in February 2020. "Acuity circles" replaced local allocation. Understanding the impact of policy change on donor utilization is important. Ideal (I), standard (S), and non-ideal (NI) donors were defined. NI donors include older, higher BMI donors with elevated transaminases or bilirubin, history of hepatitis B or C, and all DCD donors. Utilization of I, S, and NI donors was established before and after allocation change and compared between low MELD (LM) centers (MMaT ≤ 28 before allocation change) and high MELD (HM) centers (MMaT > 28). Following reallocation, transplant volume increased nationally (67 transplants/center/year pre, 74 post, p .0006) and increased for both HM and LM centers. LM centers significantly increased use of NI donors and HM centers significantly increased use of I and S donors. Centers further stratify based on donor utilization phenotype. A subset of centers increased transplant volume despite rising MMaT by broadening organ acceptance criteria, increasing use of all donor types including DCD donors (98% increase), increasing living donation, and transplanting more frequently for alcohol associated liver disease. Variance in donor utilization can undermine intended effects of allocation policy change.

Interplay between donor and recipient factors impacts outcomes after pediatric heart transplantation: An analysis from the united network for organ sharing database

BACKGROUND

Donor utilization rates continue to be low for pHT, however, efforts to expand the donor acceptance criteria have shown mixed results in single-institution studies in pediatric and adult transplantation. Purpose of this study is to assess impact of individual and cumulative donor risk factors on transplant outcomes as well as the interplay between donor and recipient risk factors as it relates to transplant outcomes.

METHOD

We analyzed pHT UNOS data (2008-2018) to compare the recipient characteristics, donor characteristics, and outcomes based on donor ejection fraction of less than 50% (low EF) and or ischemic time of greater than 4 hours (prolonged IT).

RESULTS

A total of 4345 pHT were performed of which 1309 (30.1%) were with prolonged IT and 122 (2.8%) in low EF. Additionally, 58 (1.3%) were performed with both low EF and prolonged IT (combined risk). Rest (2856 patients, 65.7%) was considered low risk. Recipients of combined risk were more likely to be younger, have post-surgical congenital heart disease, be on ECMO or ventilator but less likely on VAD (all P < .01) compared with any other group. Waitlist time was significantly lower for low EF (mean 39 days, 15-109) or combined risk group (36 days, range 15-80) compared with other groups (60 days, range 23-125) (P = .01). 1-year mortality was 8% in low-risk group, 12% in prolonged IT, 14% in reduced EF, and 28% in combined risk patients (P < .01). Number of treated rejections in one year were significantly higher in prolonged IT and combined risk group compared to other groups (P < .01). When stratified by recipient risk, there was no difference in outcomes for low risk, prolonged IT, or low EF groups; however, there were significant survival differences for high-risk recipient versus low-risk recipient in each donor group.

CONCLUSION

Lower EF donors performed similar to prolonged IT donor, but were uncommonly used. Acceptance of risk was common in recipients deemed higher risk for waitlist mortality and led to shorter wait times. Caution should be used in accepting combined risk transplants. The recipient risk factors have significant impact on outcomes across all donor risk groups and further analysis will help balance the waitlist mortality with post-transplant outcomes.

Disclosure of infectious risk to heart transplant candidates: Shared decision-making is here to stay

The Public Health Service has defined 12 criteria of increased-risk (PHS-IR) for transmissible viral infections in potential organ donors where clinicians are required to document informed consent. Over the last decade, there has been a near tripling of PHS-IR donor organs in the United States. In light of the paucity in guidelines and consensus statements to guide clinicians on how to provide informed consent to potential recipients, using a typical case, we provide an overview including: how to effectively communicate infectious risk, whether clinicians should decline PHS-IR organs, the need to standardize disclosure practice across centers and finally how much information about the donor should be communicated to the transplant candidate. Many patients can be empowered by involving them in shared decision making to understand the minimal risk associated with the use of PHS-IR organs; an important step in improving donor utilization.

Accepting multiple simultaneous liver offers does not negatively impact transplant outcomes

Impact of performing multiple liver transplants (LT) in a short period of time is unknown. Consecutively performed LT potentially increase complication rates through team fatigue and overutilization of resources and increase ischemia time. We analyzed the impact of undertaking consecutive LT (Consecutive liver transplant, CLT; LT preceded by another transplant performed not more than 12 h before, both transplants grouped together) on outcomes. Of 1702 LT performed, 314 (18.4%) were CLT. Outcome data was compared with solitary LT (SLT; not more than one LT in 12-h period). Recipient, donor, and graft characteristics were evenly matched between SLT and CLT; second LT of CLT group utilized younger donors grafts with longer cold ischemic times (P = 0.015). Implantation and operative time were significantly lower in CLT recipients on intergroup analysis (P = 0.0001 and 0.002, respectively). Early hepatic artery thrombosis (E-HAT) was higher in CLT versus SLT (P = 0.038), despite absolute number of E-HAT being low in all groups. Intragroup analysis demonstrated a trend toward more frequent E-HAT in first LT, compared to subsequent transplants; however, difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.135). In era of organ scarcity, CLT performed at high-volume center is safe and allows pragmatic utilization of organs, potentially reducing number of discarded grafts and reducing waiting list mortality.