One-year Recipient Survival Research Articles

Abstract 13887: Longitudinal Trends in Donor and Recipient Risk Profile, and Clinical Outcomes, for Donation After Circulatory Death Heart Transplantation

Background: The US rate of Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) Heart Transplant (HT) increased threefold from 2020 to 2022. While early analyses of DCD HT have suggested similar outcomes compared to donation after brain death HT, this may be the result of a restrictive DCD donor and recipient selection process, intended to minimize risk in the first US DCD HT cohorts. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that risk profiles for DCD HT donors and recipients have increased over time, as DCD HT has rapidly expanded. We sought to identify longitudinal changes in risk profiles for DCD donors and recipients from 2019-2023, and determine if such changes have impacted post-DCD HT clinical outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the UNOS thoracic organ database from December 2019 to March 2023. DCD HT donor and recipient risk characteristics were evaluated over time for significant trend. One-year recipient survival was compared over time. Results: During the study period, 716 DCD HT were performed. Recipients were mostly male (79%), Caucasian (68%), and had mean age of 54 years. Over time, several donor and recipient characteristics were significantly different (Table, Figure). Donors were older, and had increased BMI, creatinine, and agonal phase to cross-clamp time, although overall lower ischemic time. Recipients were more likely to be status 1 or 2, and had increased BMI, waitlist time, creatinine, and CPRA. Donor and recipient comorbidities and mechanical support use were unchanged. Post-HT survival over time was unchanged. Conclusions: Since the first US DCD HT, several donor and recipient risk-factors have increased. These increased risk profiles have not translated into reduced one-year survival.

Donor outcomes in anonymous live liver donation

Death rates on liver transplant waiting lists range from 5%-25%. Herein, we report a unique experience with 50 anonymous individuals who volunteered to address this gap by offering to donate part of their liver to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship, so called anonymous live liver donation (A-LLD). Candidates were screened to confirm excellent physical, mental, social, and financial health. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Qualitative interviews after donation examined motivation and experiences. Validated self-reported questionnaires assessed personality traits and psychological impact. A total of 50 A-LLD liver transplants were performed between 2005 and 2017. Most donors had a university education, a middle-class income, and a history of prior altruism. Half were women. Median age was 38.5 years (range 20-59). Thirty-three (70%) learned about this opportunity through public or social media. Saving a life, helping others, generativity, and reciprocity for past generosity were motivators. Social, financial, healthcare, and legal support in Canada were identified as facilitators. A-LLD identified most with the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The median hospital stay was 6 days. One donor experienced a Dindo-Clavien Grade 3 complication that completely resolved. One-year recipient survival was 91% in 22 adults and 97% in 28 children. No A-LLD reported regretting their decision. This is the first and only report of the characteristics, motivations and facilitators of A-LLD in a large cohort. With rigorous protocols, outcomes are excellent. A-LLD has significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability. We report a unique experience with 50 living donors who volunteered to donate to a recipient with whom they had no biological connection or prior relationship (anonymous living donors). This report is the first to discuss motivations, strategies and facilitators that may mitigate physical, social and ethical risk factors in this patient population. With rigorous protocols, anonymous liver donation and recipient outcomes are excellent; with appropriate clinical expertise and system facilitators in place, our experience suggests that other centers may consider the procedure for its significant potential to reduce the gap between transplant organ demand and availability.

The evolution of anterior sector venous drainage in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: does one technique fit all?

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), an adequate hepatic venous outflow constitutes one of the basic principles of a technically successful procedure. The issue of whether the anterior sector (AS) of the right lobe (RL) graft should or should not be routinely drained has been controversial. The aim of this 10-year, single-center, retrospective cohort study was to review the evolution of our hepatic venous outflow reconstruction technique in RL grafts and evaluate the impact of routine AS drainage strategy on the outcome. The study group consisted of 582 primary RL LDLT performed between July 2004 and December 2014. The cases were divided into 3 consecutive periods with different AS venous outflow reconstruction techniques, which included middle hepatic vein (MHV) drainage in Era 1 (n=119), a more selective AS drainage with cryopreserved homologous grafts in Era 2 (n=391), and routine segment 5 and/or 8 oriented AS drainage with synthetic grafts in Era 3 (n=72). Intraoperative portal flow measurement with routine splenic artery ligation (SAL) technique (in RL grafts with a portal flow of ≥ 250 mL/min/100 g liver tissue) was added later in Era 3. These 3 groups were compared in terms of recipient and donor demographics, surgical characteristics and short-term outcome. The rate of AS venous drainage varied from 58.8% in Era 1 and 35.0% in Era 2 to 73.6% in Era 3 (P<0.001). Perioperative mortality rate of recipients significantly decreased over the years (15.1% in Era 1 and 8.7% in Era 2 vs. 2.8% in Era 3, P=0.01). After the addition of SAL technique in the 45 cases, there was only 1 graft loss and no perioperative mortality. One-year recipient survival rate was also significantly higher in Era 3 (79.6% in Era 1 and 86.1% in Era 2 vs. 92.1% in Era 3, P=0.002). Routine AS drainage via segment 5 and/or 8 veins using synthetic grafts is a technique to fit all RL grafts in LDLT. Addition of SAL effectively prevents early graft dysfunction and significantly improves the outcome.

French survey of the first three-years of liver transplantation activity from uncontrolled donors deceased after cardiac death

ObjectiveTo assess the first three years of French activity related to liver transplantation from uncontrolled donation after cardiac death (uDCD). Study designProspective and observational study in the three active centres authorized by the French Biomedicine Agency. Patients and methodsAll patients deceased between 2010 and 2012 after an uncontrolled cardiac arrest admitted to one of three centres (Pitié-Salpêtrière, Saint-Louis or Bicêtre hospitals, AP–HP, Paris, France) and potentially eligible for liver recovery were included. Abdominal normothermic oxygenated recirculation (ANOR) was used for graft preservation. ResultsOne hundred twenty-six potential uDCD donors were identified as eligible for liver recovery after hospital admission. The main causes of organ recovery failure were technical failure related to ANOR (29 patients, 23%), refusal of consent (39 patients, 31% of potential uDCD donors and 40% of asked relatives) and abnormal hepatic transaminases up to 200 UI.L−1 during ANOR (24 patients, 19%). Finally, 11 livers were transplanted. Process efficiency was 9% [95% CI: 4–15%]. One-year recipient survival was 82%, [95% CI: 48–98%] and one-year graft survival was 64% [95% CI: 31–89%]. ConclusionLiver transplantation from uDCD donors is achievable in France, despite low process efficiency.

Marginal grafts increase early mortality in liver transplantation.

Expanded donor criteria (marginal) grafts are an important solution for organ shortage. Nevertheless, they raise an ethical dilemma because they may increase the risk of transplant failure. This study compares the outcomes from marginal and non-marginal graft transplantation in 103 cases of liver transplantation due to chronic hepatic failure. One hundred and three consecutive liver transplantations to treat chronic liver disease performed in the Liver Transplantation Service of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo between January 2001 and March 2006 were retrospectively analyzed. We estimated graft quality according to a validated scoring system. We assessed the pre-transplantation liver disease category using the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), as low MELD (< 20) or high MELD (>or= 20). The parameters for marginal and non-marginal graft comparison were the one-week, one-month and one-year recipient survival rates, serum liver enzyme peak, post-transplantation hospital stay and incidence of surgical complications and retransplantation. The significance level was 0.05. There were no differences between the groups regarding post-transplantation hospital stay, serum liver enzyme levels and surgical complications. In contrast, marginal grafts decreased overall recipient survival one month after transplantation. Furthermore, low-MELD recipients of non-marginal grafts showed better one-week and one-month survival than did high-MELD recipients of marginal livers. After the first month, patient survival was comparable in all groups up to one year. The use of marginal graft increases early mortality in liver transplantation, particularly among high-MELD recipients.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis B cirrhosis

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has particular advantages for Turkey where hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the most common cause of cirrhosis, both because LDLT circumvents the difficulties encountered in the emerging world in providing deceased donor organs, and because it allows preemptive antiviral therapy. The aim of this study was to review one institution's experience with LDLT in patients with chronic HBV infection. A total of 109 patients with chronic HBV infection underwent LDLT between September 1999 and June 2005, of whom 40 were coinfected with hepatitis D virus and 23 had hepatocellular carcinoma. Antiviral prophylaxis was attempted in all, beginning prior to transplantation with lamivudine or adefovir, and continuing after transplantation with low dose intramuscular hyperimmune B immunoglobulin (HBIg) plus lamivudine or adefovir. In a median follow up of 20 months (range 1-66 months), there was no donor mortality. One-year recipient survival was 90%, and in total 16 recipients died. None of the deaths was related to HBV. Recurrence of HBV infection was detected by reappearance of serum hepatitis B surface antigen in six patients (5.5%) at 5, 8, 12, 17, 34 and 46 months after transplantation, respectively. There was no influence of donor hepatitis B core antibody status on the likelihood of recurrence of HBV in the allograft. The results indicate that LDLT with antiviral treatment and low dose HBIg provides excellent results for donors and recipients.