Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Research Articles

Clinical Characteristics Associated With Posttransplant Survival Among Adults 70 Years Old or Older Undergoing Liver Transplantation.

We sought to identify pre-liver transplantation (LT) characteristics among older adults associated with post-LT survival. The proportion of older patients undergoing deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) has increased over time. We analyzed adult DDLT recipients in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry from 2016 through 2020, excluding patients listed as status 1 or with a model of end-stage liver disease exceptions for hepatocellular carcinoma. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate post-LT survival probabilities among older recipients (age ≥70 y). Associations between clinical covariates and post-LT mortality were assessed using Cox regressions. Of 22,862 DDLT recipients, 897 (4%) were 70 years old or older. Compared with younger recipients, older recipients had worse overall survival ( P < 0.01) (1 y: 88% vs 92%, 3 y: 77% vs 86%, and 5 y: 67% vs 78%). Among older adults, in univariate Cox regressions, dialysis [hazards ratio (HR): 1.96, 95% CI: 1.38-2.77] and poor functional status [defined as Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) <40] (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.31-2.53) were each associated with mortality, remaining significant on multivariable Cox regressions. The effect of dialysis and KPS <40 at LT on post-LT survival (HR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.77-4.01) was worse than the effects of either KPS <40 (HR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.03-2.23) or dialysis alone (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.62-3.36). Older recipients with KPS >40 without dialysis had comparable survival rates compared with younger recipients ( P = 0.30). While older DDLT recipients had worse overall post-LT survival compared with younger recipients, favorable survival rates were observed among older adults who did not require dialysis and had poor functional status. Poor functional status and dialysis at LT may be useful to stratify older adults at higher risk for poor post-LT outcomes.

Characteristics of Deceased Donor Candidates in Deceased Donor Liver Transplant (DDLT) at H. Adam Malik Central General Hospital, Medan

Characteristics of Deceased Donor Candidates in Deceased Donor Liver Transplant (DDLT) at H. Adam Malik Central General Hospital, Medan

Incidence, epidemiology, and outcomes of acute allograft rejection following liver transplantation in Australia.

Acute allograft rejection is a well-known complication of liver transplantation (LT). The incidence, epidemiology, and outcomes of acute rejection have not been well described in Australia. We retrospectively studied consecutive adults who underwent deceased donor LT at a single center between 2010 and 2020. Donor and recipient data at the time of LT and recipient outcomes were collected from a prospective LT database. Liver biopsy reports were reviewed, and only a graft's first instance of biopsy-proven acute rejection was analyzed. During the study period, 796 liver transplants were performed in 770 patients. Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 34.9% of transplants. There were no significant changes in the incidence of rejection over time (linear trend p =0.11). The median time to the first episode of rejection was 71 days after LT: 2.2% hyperacute, 50.4% early (≤90d), and 47.5% late rejection (>90d). Independent risk factors for rejection were younger recipient age at transplant (aHR 0.98 per year increase, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00, p =0.01), and ABO-incompatible grafts (aHR 2.55 vs. ABO-compatible, 95% CI: 1.27-5.09, p <0.01) while simultaneous multiorgan transplants were protective (aHR 0.21 vs. LT only, 95% CI: 0.08-0.58, p <0.01). Development of acute rejection (both early and late) was independently associated with significantly reduced graft (aHR 3.13, 95% CI: 2.21-4.42, p <0.001) and patient survival (aHR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.35-4.98, p <0.001). In this 11-year Australian study, acute LT rejection occurred in 35%, with independent risk factors of younger recipient age and ABO-incompatible transplant, while having a simultaneous multiorgan transplant was protective. Acute rejection was independently associated with reduced graft and patient survival after adjustment for other factors.

Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation in India: First Report of 5-y Outcomes.

Paucity of deceased donor livers has resulted in a 10-fold rise in living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) performed in India over the past decade. Nonetheless, number of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) performed has improved with the establishment of simplified legal framework for certification of brain death and organ donation. In this study, we present our outcomes of DDLT performed at various centers, comparing their outcomes and provide a snapshot of the increasing number of DDLT across the state over the years. All consecutive patients who underwent liver transplants from January 2010 till December 2019 by our transplant team in the state of Tamil Nadu, India, were included in the study. The program was established initially at the primary hospital in the year 2010 and with the evolution of the initial experience, transplant programs were expanded to the others hospital from the year 2015. Preoperative clinical data, intraoperative characteristics, and posttransplant outcomes of DDLT were analyzed from our prospective database. A total of 362 DDLTs (331 adults, 31 children) were performed at 11 centers. Median (range) model for end-stage liver disease score was 16 (6-39). Forty-eight split, 11 combined liver kidney, and 4 auxiliary DDLTs were performed. One-, 3-, and 5-y survival was 87.2%, 80.4%, and 76.6% in adults and 80.6%, 80.6%, and 80.6% in children, respectively. In a country where over 80% of the LTs are performed as LDLT, we provide the first report of a heartening trend of increasing number of DDLT programs being established with excellent 5-y outcomes.

Outcomes of 6000 living donor liver transplantation procedures: a pioneering experience at ASAN Medical Center.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has emerged as a favorable alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation, significantly reducing waitlist mortality, particularly in Asian countries with very low deceased organ donation rates. Asan Medical Center (AMC) in South Korea has pioneered innovative LDLT surgical techniques and become established as an extremely high-volume center for LDLT. This retrospective study analyzed 6000 consecutive LDLT procedures, including 510 dual-graft procedures, performed at AMC between December 1994 and January 2021. Of these, 312 LDLT procedures were performed in children aged < 18years. In adult recipients, liver cirrhosis (LC) related to viral hepatitis was the most common indication, occurring in 69.8% of cases. Biliary atresia (46.8%) was the most common indication for pediatric LDLT. This study demonstrated outstanding long-term outcomes, with patient survival rates at 1, 5, 10, and 20years of 92.7%, 85.9%, 82.1%, and 70.9%, respectively, in LDLT group for adults aged 50 and under at the time of LDLT, and 92.9%, 89.0%, 88.1%, and 81.9%, respectively, in the pediatric group. The in-hospital mortality rate of adult recipients was 3.8% (n = 214/5688). This study demonstrates the importance of refined surgical techniques, selection of grafts tailored to the recipient, and comprehensive multidisciplinary perioperative patient care in expanding the scope of LDLT and improving recipient outcomes.

Clinical impact and risk factors for cytomegalovirus infection in deceased donor liver transplantation without prophylaxis: Single center experience

Clinical impact and risk factors for cytomegalovirus infection in deceased donor liver transplantation without prophylaxis: Single center experience

Waitlist Outcomes for Exception and Non-exception Liver Transplant Candidates in the United States Following Implementation of the Median MELD at Transplant (MMaT)/250-mile Policy.

Since February 2020, exception points have been allocated equivalent to the median model for end-stage liver disease at transplant within 250 nautical miles of the transplant center (MMaT/250). We compared transplant rate and waitlist mortality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exception, non-HCC exception, and non-exception candidates to determine whether MMaT/250 advantages (or disadvantages) exception candidates. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 23 686 adult, first-time, active, deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) candidates between February 4, 2020, and February 3, 2022. We compared DDLT rates using Cox regression, and waitlist mortality/dropout using competing risks regression in non-exception versus HCC versus non-HCC candidates. Within 24 mo of study entry, 58.4% of non-exception candidates received DDLT, compared with 57.8% for HCC candidates and 70.5% for non-HCC candidates. After adjustment, HCC candidates had 27% lower DDLT rate (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.68 0.73 0.77 ) compared with non-exception candidates. However, waitlist mortality for HCC was comparable to non-exception candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [asHR] = 0.93 1.03 1.15 ). Non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma had substantially higher risk of waitlist mortality compared with non-exception candidates (asHR = 1.27 1.70 2.29 for pulmonary complications of cirrhosis, 1.35 2.04 3.07 for cholangiocarcinoma). The same was not true of non-HCC candidates with exceptions for other reasons (asHR = 0.54 0.88 1.44 ). Under MMaT/250, HCC, and non-exception candidates have comparable risks of dying before receiving liver transplant, despite lower transplant rates for HCC. However, non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma have substantially higher risk of dying before receiving liver transplant; these candidates may merit increased allocation priority.

Endovascular management of a ruptured hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm after liver transplantation presenting as hemobilia

Vascular and biliary complications can still occur among liver transplants despite advances in surgical technique and immunosuppression. Rupture of a hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm is a rare but lethal complication after liver transplantation and often manifests as acute gastrointestinal bleeding. It occurs in < 3% of cases with an associated mortality as high as 50% especially if diagnosed late. A high index of suspicion may decrease consequent morbidities and potential graft loss. Infection and type of biliary anastomosis are commonly identified risk factors in the development of a pseudoaneurysm. Angiography usually identifies the location which is commonly at the site of anastomosis. Frequent management options include surgical revascularization requiring re-operation or endovascular intervention with the use of coils and stents. No consensus yet as to the standard treatment has been established. We present a case of a 40-year-old male having a ruptured hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm with an arteriobiliary fistula after performing a deceased donor liver transplant managed with endovascular placement of a stent. Patient remains asymptomatic with patent hepatic artery after 6 months of follow-up.

Universal antifungal prophylaxis effectively prevents fungal bloodstream infection in pediatric liver transplant recipients: a retrospective real-world study

ObjectivesFungal bloodstream infection (fBSI) following pediatric liver transplantation presents a significant challenge; however, there remains a paucity of guidance regarding antifungal prophylaxis in this population. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of universal antifungal prophylaxis and propose a desirable strategy. MethodsWe enrolled 604 pediatric patients who underwent liver transplantation between 2020 and 2023, including 242 patients with empirical prophylaxis and 362 patients with universal prophylaxis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors for fBSI. ResultsEight (2.2%) pediatric recipients in the universal prophylaxis group and 13 (5.4%) in the empirical group developed fBSI (P = 0.038). Universal prophylaxis was a protective factor (P = 0.044), while high-volume intraoperative plasma transfusion and deceased donor liver transplantation were independent risk factors for fBSI (P = 0.035 and 0.008, respectively). Universal antifungal strategy showed an increased overall survival trend after liver transplantation although without significant statistical difference (P = 0.217). Patients with fBSI had poorer survival than those without fBSI (P <0.001). ConclusionsUniversal prophylaxis strategy for fBSI in pediatrics after liver transplantation is desirable as it could markedly decrease the occurrence of fBSI. Pediatric patients with deceased donors and high-volume intraoperative transfusion should be paid more attention to preventing fBSI.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in India: Are we ready for 2040?

Liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been widely researched and is well established worldwide. The cornerstone of this treatment lies in the various criteria formulated by expert consensus and experience. The variations among the criteria are staggering, and the short- and long-term out comes are controversial. To study the differences in the current practices of LT for HCC at different centers in India and discuss their clinical implications in the future. We conducted a survey of major centers in India that performed LT in December 2022. A total of 23 responses were received. The centers were classified as high- and low-volume, and the current trend of care for patients und ergoing LT for HCC was noted. Of the 23 centers, 35% were high volume center (> 500 Liver transplants) while 52% were high-volume centers that performed more than 50 transplants/year. Approximately 39% of centers had performed > 50 LT for HCC while the percent distribution for HCC in LT patients was 5%-15% in approximately 73% of the patients. Barring a few, most centers were divided equally between University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and center-specific criteria when choosing patients with HCC for LT, and most (65%) did not have separate transplant criteria for deceased donor LT and living donor LT (LDLT). Most centers (56%) preferred surgical resection over LT for a Child A cirrhosis patient with a resectable 4 cm HCC lesion. Positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (CT) was the modality of choice for metastatic workup in the majority of centers (74%). Downstaging was the preferred option for over 90% of the centers and included transarterial chemoembolization, transarterial radioembolization, stereotactic body radiotherapy and atezolizumab/bevacizumab with varied indications. The alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) cut-off was used by 74% of centers to decide on transplantation as well as to downstage tumors, even if they met the criteria. The criteria for successful downstaging varied, but most centers conformed to the UCSF or their center-specific criteria for LT, along with the AFP cutoff values. The wait time for LT from down staging was at least 4-6 wk in all centers. Contrast-enhanced CT was the preferred imaging modality for post-LT surveillance in 52% of the centers. Approximately 65% of the centers preferred to start everolimus between 1 and 3 months post-LT. The current predicted 5-year survival rate of HCC patients in India is less than 15%. The aim of transplantation is to achieve at least a 60% 5-year disease free survival rate, which will provide relief to the prediction of an HCC surge over the next 20 years. The current worldwide criteria (Milan/UCSF) may have a higher 5-year survival (> 70%); however, the majority of patients still do not fit these criteria and are dependent on other suboptimal modes of treatment, with much lower survival rates. To make predictions for 2040, we must prepare to arm ourselves with less stringent selection criteria to widen the pool of patients who may undergo transplantation and have a chance of a better outcome. With more advanced technology and better donor outcomes, LDLT will provide a cutting edge in the fight against liver cancer over the next two decades.

Impact of sex on the outcomes of deceased donor liver transplantation.

Data examining the impact of sex on liver transplant (LT) outcomes are limited. It is clear that further research into sex-related differences in transplant patients is necessary to identify areas for improvement. Elucidation of these differences may help to identify specific areas of focus to improve on the organ matching process, as well as the peri- and post-operative care of these patients. To utilize data from a high-volume Eurotransplant center to compare characteristics of male and female patients undergoing liver transplant and assess asso ciation between sex-specific variables with short- and long-term post-transplant outcomes. A retrospective review of the University of Essen's transplant database was performed with collection of baseline patient characteristics, transplant-related data, and short-term outcomes. Comparisons of these data were made with Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney U, χ2 and Bonferroni tests applied where app ropriate. A P value of < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. Of the total 779 LT recipients, 261 (33.5%) were female. Female patients suffered higher incidences of acute liver failure and lower incidences of alcohol-related or viremic liver disease (P = 0.001). Female patients were more likely to have received an organ from a female donor with a higher donor risk index score, and as a high urgency offer (all P < 0.05). Baseline characteristics of male and female recipients were also significantly different. In multivariate hazard regression analysis, recipient lab-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score and donor cause of death were associated with long-term outcomes in females. Pre-operative diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, age at time of listing, duration of surgery, and units transfused during surgery, were associated with long-term outcomes in males. Severity of complications was associated with long-term outcomes in both groups. Overall survival was similar in both males and females; however, when stratified by age, females < 50 years of age had the best survival. Female and male LT recipients have different baseline and transplant-related characteristics, with sex-specific variables which are associated with long-term outcomes. Female recipients < 50 years of age demonstrated the best long-term outcomes. Pre- and post-transplant practices should be individualized based on sex-specific variables to optimize long-term outcomes.

Recipient Survival among Living Donor vs. Deceased Donor Liver Transplants for Acute Liver Failure in the United States.

Objectives: Acute liver failure (ALF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Timely liver transplantation (LT) is the only universally accepted therapy for ALF that is non-responsive to medical therapy. Data regarding the use of living donor LT (LDLT) for this indication in the US is scarce. Materials and Methods: United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (UNOS/OPTN) data from January 2002 to December 2020 were reviewed. Adult and pediatric recipients listed as status 1 were included. Demographics, clinical and laboratory data, and post-LT survival rates were compared for LDLT vs. DDLT recipients. Results: There were 180 LDLT (3.6%) and 4779 DDLT (96.4%) recipients with a diagnosis of ALF. The majority of recipients in the LDLT group were pediatric (n = 164, 91%) compared to the DDLT group (n = 1455, 30%), p < 0.001. In the pediatric-only group, post-LT survival was comparable between LDLT and DDLT recipients (p = 0.15). Five-year post-LT survival was higher for pediatric recipients compared to adults in the LDLT group (84.2% vs. 62.5%, respectively, p < 0.001) and the DDLT group (82.8% vs. 78.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Adults had a higher hazard of death compared to pediatric recipients in the LDLT group (HR = 3.560, 95% CI 1.612-7.844, p = 0.002) and the DDLT group (HR = 1.472, 95% CI 1.290-1.679, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis results, the type of LT and age group were not associated with higher post-LT mortality. Conclusions: In the US, LDLT constitutes 3.6% of LTs for ALF. In the pediatric-only group, post-LT survival was comparable between LDLT and DDLT recipients. Overall, there were superior post-LT outcomes for pediatric recipients compared to adults for LDLT and DDLT.

Age Matters: What Affects the Cumulative Lifespan of a Transplanted Liver?

Assess factors affecting the cumulative lifespan of a transplanted liver. Liver ageing is different from other solid organs. It is unknown how old a liver can actually get after liver transplantation (LT). Deceased donor liver transplants from 1988-2021 were queried from the United States (US) UNOS registry. Cumulative liver age was calculated as donor age + recipient graft survival. In total, 184,515 livers were included. Most were DBD-donors (n=175,343). The percentage of livers achieving >70, 80, 90 and 100years cumulative age was 7.8% (n=14,392), 1.9% (n=3,576), 0.3% (n=528), and 0.01% (n=21), respectively. The youngest donor age contributing to a cumulative liver age >90years was 59years, with post-transplant survival of 34years. In pediatric recipients, 736 (4.4%) and 282 livers (1.7%) survived >50 and 60years overall, respectively. Transplanted livers achieved cumulative age >90years in 2.86-per-1000 and >100years in 0.1-per-1000. The US population at-large has a cumulative "liver age" >90years in 5.35-per-1000 persons, and >100y in 0.2-per-1000. Livers aged>60 years at transplant experienced both improved cumulative survival ( P <0.0001) and interestingly improved survival after transplantation ( P <0.0001). Recipient warm-ischemia-time of >30minutes was most predictive of reduced cumulative liver survival overall (n=184,515, HR=1.126, P <0.001) and excluding patients with mortality in the first 6month (n=151,884, HR=0.973, P <0.001). In summary, transplanted livers frequently get as old as those in the average population despite ischemic-reperfusion-injury and immunosuppression. The presented results justify using older donor livers regardless of donation type, even in sicker recipients with limited options.

The outcomes and biliary complications of a staged biliary reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation: a propensity score matched analysis

BackgroundUncontrolled massive bleeding and bowel edema are critical issues during liver transplantation. Temporal intra-abdominal packing with staged biliary reconstruction (SBR) yields acceptable outcomes in deceased donor liver transplantation; however, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are scarce. MethodsA retrospective analysis of 1269 patients who underwent LDLT was performed. After one-to-two propensity score matching, patients who underwent LDLT with SBR were compared with those who underwent LDLT with one-stage biliary reconstruction (OSBR). The primary outcomes were graft survival (GS) and overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcomes were postoperative biliary complications. ResultsThere were 55 and 110 patients in the SBR and OSBR groups, respectively. The median blood loss was 6500 mL in the SBR and 4875 mL in the OSBR group. Patients receiving SBR-LDLT had higher incidence of sepsis (69.0% vs. 43.6%; P < 0.01) and intra-abdominal infections (60.0% vs. 30.9%; P < 0.01). Biliary complication rates (14.5% vs. 19.1%; P = 0.47) and 1-and 5-year GS (87.27%, 74.60% vs. 83.64%, 72.71%; P = 0.98) and OS (89.09%, 78.44% vs. 84.55%, 73.70%; P = 0.752) rates were comparable between the two groups. ConclusionsSBR could serve as a life-saving procedure for patients undergoing complex critical LDLT, with GS, OS, and biliary outcomes comparable to those of OSBR.

Percutaneous Transhepatic Sphincterotome–Guided Management of Post–Living Donor Liver Transplant Biliary Anastomotic Stricture: An Innovative Approach

ABSTRACT Post–liver transplantation biliary complications remain a serious concern and are associated with reduced patient and graft survival. Among various biliary complications, anastomotic stricture (AS) is the most frequent and challenging one. The frequency of AS after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is higher as compared to deceased donor liver transplantation. The management involves endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and/or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, but refractory cases necessitate surgical revision. We present a case of complex biliary AS in a 63-year-old man after LDLT. The conventional approaches including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, and cholangioscope-guided interventions remained unsuccessful. An innovative approach using a wire-guided sphincterotome through percutaneous transhepatic route successfully managed the complex post-LDLT AS. This is perhaps the first reported case of novel utilization of sphincterotome through transhepatic route for the management of AS in LDLT, averting major surgical interventions with related morbidity and mortality.

Geographic disparities in access to liver transplant for advanced cirrhosis: Time to ring the alarm!

Decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer are major risk factors for mortality worldwide. Liver transplantation (LT), both live-donor LT or deceased-donor LT, are lifesaving, but there are several barriers toward equitable access. These barriers are exacerbated in the setting of critical illness or acute-on-chronic liver failure. Rates of LT vary widely worldwide but are lowest in lower-income countries owing to lack of resources, infrastructure, late disease presentation, and limited donor awareness. A recent experience by the Chronic Liver Disease Evolution and Registry for Events and Decompensation consortium defined these barriers toward LT as critical in determining overall survival in hospitalized cirrhosis patients. A major focus should be on appropriate, affordable, and early cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer care to prevent the need for LT. Live-donor LT is predominant across Asian countries, whereas deceased-donor LT is more common in Western countries; both approaches have unique challenges that add to the access disparities. There are many challenges toward equitable access but uniform definitions of acute-on-chronic liver failure, improving transplant expertise, enhancing availability of resources and encouraging knowledge between centers, and preventing disease progression are critical to reduce LT disparities.

Challenges of liver transplantation programs in low‐ and middle‐income countries: An experience from Sri Lanka

AbstractLiver diseases lead to 1.3 million deaths per year around the world, the majority of which are secondary to cirrhosis. In the management of liver diseases in chronic and acute conditions, liver transplant (LT) plays a major role in improving the survival and quality of life of patients. LT programmes require the technical capabilities in performing the pre‐transplant evaluation, transplant surgery and post‐transplant care supported by adequate infrastructure and a set of trained teams. Globally, there were 28,000 deceased donor LTs, and 14,000 living donor LTs were performed in 2021. In the South Asia region, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka conducted 2998 LTs in 2021. Many countries report sociocultural, religious and legislative barriers to acquiring adequate donor livers. We describe the challenges in LT programmes in low‐ and middle‐income countries and experiences from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka carried out its first LT in 2010, and the service is provided free of charge in the state health sector. In Sri Lanka, the common indications for LT in adults are non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and alcoholic liver disease. In children, the indications are biliary atresia, hepatocellular carcinoma and Wilson disease. The common challenges include a lack of an adequate number of doctors and post‐transplant team members, a low number of organ donors and a long waiting list, all of which can be disadvantageous for transplant programmes. To continue providing LT services, there is a need to adopt multimodal strategies in the areas of providing additional skills training to the operating team and promoting organ donation culture in the background of supportive organ donation legislation. With the adoption of the national strategic plan for organ, tissue and cell transplantation, the country hopes to strengthen its capacity of providing transplant services to its people.

A305 ANONYMOUS LIVING LIVER DONATION IMPROVES ACCESS FOR MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED CHILDREN IN NEED OF LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

Abstract Background Since our first pediatric anonymous non-directed live donor liver transplant (A-LDLT) performed in April 2005, 62 children have undergone live donor liver transplant (LDLT) with an anonymous non-directed graft. Anon-LDLT organs being allocated as per our deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) wait list. Aims To evaluate clinical outcomes, recipient characteristics and social determinants of health of pediatric recipients of A-LDLT in comparison to those who received a directed LDLT (Dir-LDLT) and DDLT. Methods Retrospective analysis of all recipients of LDLT performed between January 2005 and March 2023. Demographic and clinical data included age, sex, race, ethnicity, single-parent households, primary diagnosis, recipient blood type, time on waiting list, post-LT intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), time to extubation, and post-transplant comorbidities were assessed as covariates. A comparative analysis was conducted between children receiving A-LDLT, Dir-LDLT versus DDLT. Results A total of 422 (50% male, 57% white, 23% Asian, 7% Black, 5% indigenous) childrenunderwent LT during the study period. Biliary atresia (40%) and metabolic diseases (19%) were the commonest primary indications. A-LDLT was done in 62 children (15%) with no directed donor options. Dir-LDLT was in 174 children (41%). Of 186 DDLTs (44%), 25% were split grafts, 26% reduced, and 49% whole liver grafts. In A-LDLT recipients, the primary diseases were more frequently characterized by metabolic disorders (31%), while the incidence of acute liver failure was notably lower (0%). Recipients of Anon-LDLT were more often Indigenous recipients in comparison to Dir-LDLT or DDLT recipients (p=0.044). Anon-LDLT recipients were more frequently living in single parent households (18% vs 3% vs 10%, pampersand:003C0.001) and to require interpreter assistance (11% vs 3% vs 0.5%, pampersand:003C0.001) (Table), compared to children who received Dir-LDLT or DDLT. Median time on the wait list was longer for Anon-LDLT (92 days) compared to Dir-LDLT (62 days) and DDLT (72 days) recipients (p=0.004). Post-LT ICU LOS, time to extubation, other post-LT complications or patient prognosis were better in the A-LDLT and Dir-LDLT recipients than DDLT recipients. Conclusions This retrospective analysis of 422 children undergoing LT at a single institution confirms excellent patient and graft survival for A-LDLT recipients. Patients from Indigenous communities, single parent and households where English is a second language, are more frequently the beneficiaries of Anon-LDLT grafts. Anon-LDLT, as utilized in this single center analysis, benefits medically underserved pediatric patients who otherwise have limited access to the advantages of LT. Funding Agencies None

Use of 50 years or older donors in septuagenarian recipients for liver transplantation: Potential to expand the donor pool: Old livers for old transplant recipients

BackgroundWhile younger donors have better liver transplant (LT) outcomes, the median age of both the donor and recipient pools is rising. The impact of using donors ≥50 years on the LT outcomes of septuagenarians is unknown. MethodsFrom 2011–2021, outcomes in septuagenarian LT recipients from donor livers <50 year-old (DON<50) and donor livers ≥50 year-old (DON≥50) were analyzed using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Post-LT survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model. A propensity score was utilized to conduct one-to-one matching using 14 recipient variables (1230-pairs). ResultsThere were 2797 septuagenarian deceased-donor LT recipients during the study period. Of these, 1487 (53.2 %) were DON <50 with median age of 34 years and 1310 (46.8 %) were DON ≥50 with median age of 60 years. The number of LT for septuagenarians has increased over the last decade. The causes of donor and recipient deaths were different between two groups. Post-LT one-year survival (DON<50: 89.3 % vs. DON≥50: 88.3 %) and five-year survival (DON<50: 41.4 % vs DON≥50: 42.8 %) were comparable. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model showed that donor age ≥50 years is not associated with increased mortality after LT in the matched cohort (HR: 1.04, 95 % CI: 0.88–1.24, P = 0.63). ConclusionsThe utilization of carefully selected donor livers older than 50 years may be a viable option for septuagenarian LT candidates by lowering their waitlist time and can maximize the organ utilization without compromising the outcomes.

Liver Transplantation at a Small Volume Center—The Role of Network System

IntroductionLiver transplantation (LT) is typically performed at specialized, high-volume centers. However, some smaller centers also offer liver transplantation services, but their outcomes and safety have been a subject of debate. To overcome these difficulties, we tried to build a Catholic medical center (CMC) network to share our experiences and overcome the lack of volume. In this study, we reviewed the overall outcome of patients undergoing LT at a small-volume procedure center, with a focus on patient and graft survival rates. MethodsBetween July 2014 and September 2021, 60 adults underwent LT at Bucheon Saint Mary's Hospital. The overall outcomes were analyzed in terms of perioperative outcomes, complications, and overall survival rate. In addition, the patients were divided into a benign end-stage liver disease (ESLD) group (n =44) and a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) group (n = 16). The baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and overall survival rate were analyzed between the two groups. ResultsOf a total of 60 LT, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was 26, and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) was 34. LDLT was 14 (31.8%) in the ESLD group and 12 (75.0%) in the HCC group. The overall 1-year, 3-year, 5-year survival rates were 86.7%, 79.7%, and 77.7%, respectively. The survival difference was not statistically significant (p=0.214) between the two groups. ConclusionWe suggests that with appropriate patient selection and adequate resources, LT can be safely performed at smaller centers, with the assistance of the CMC network, thus expanding access to this life-saving procedure.