Extended Criteria Donors in Liver Transplantation: Adapting Donor Quality and Recipient

Despite the progressive increase in the number of liver transplantations, the mortality on the waiting list remains between 5% and 10%, and patients have to deal with longer waiting periods. Facing this situation, transplant centers have developed alternatives to increase the number of grafts by accepting donors who were previously considered to be inadequate, because they are at higher risk of initial poor function and graft failure or may cause disease transmission. Currently, some marginal donors are being routinely used: elderly donors, steatotic grafts, non-heart-beating donors, hepatitis C virus-positive (HCV+) or hepatitis B core antibody-positive donors. These so-called marginal or extended-criteria donors were initially used in high-risk or urgent recipients; however, the number of marginal grafts has significantly increased, forcing the transplant community toward their more rationale use to maintain excellent results of liver transplantation. In this new scenario, the adequacy between donor and recipient may be paramount. Advanced donor age seems to be related to a greater graft failure rate in HCV+ recipients. Early survival seems to be significantly reduced when steatotic grafts are used in recipients with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. Moreover, a decreased survival has been observed among high-risk patients receiving organs from marginal donors. No benefit seems to exist when high-donor risk index grafts are transplanted into recipients with low MELD Scores. The recognition of various donor groups according to their quality and the need for good donor and recipient selection must lead us to define new policies for organ allocation of marginal grafts that may come into conflict with current policies of organ allocation according to the risk of death among patients awaiting a liver transplantation.     

Strategies to expand the donor pool for pancreas transplantation

BACKGROUND: Our organ procurement organization has been forced to liberalize the donor criteria in order to expand the donor pool for pancreas transplantation. In this report, we describe our experience using whole organ pancreatic grafts from "marginal" donors, which include grafts obtained from donors over 45 years of age and from donors who were identified to be hemodynamically unstable at the time of organ retrieval. METHODS: A prospective study was performed between July 1994 and March 1998, during which time 137 pancreas transplants were performed at our center using organs procured by our own surgeons (organs sent by other teams were excluded). The rapid en bloc technique was used exclusively. The use of pancreatic grafts from marginal donors was analyzed for short-term and overall graft survival, and for delayed graft function and complications. RESULTS: Overall pancreas graft survival for our series was 83%, with a mean follow-up of 23 months. There were 22 pancreas grafts from donors over 45 years of age, 13 of whom were greater than 50 years of age. The actual graft survival rate of the over-45 donor group was 86%. Fifty-one grafts were removed from hemodynamically unstable donors on high-dose vasopressors. The actual graft survival in this group was 86%. There was no significant difference found in graft survival between recipients of pancreatic grafts from marginal and nonmarginal donors. Delayed graft function was exhibited by more recipients of grafts from donors on high-dose vasopressors (P<0.05), but this had no effect on long-term graft survival and endocrine function. Recipients of marginal donor grafts did not have higher rates of complication compared to recipients of nonmarginal grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, we currently employ a graft selection strategy not limited by donor age or hemodynamic stability. Our selection of pancreas organs for transplantation is based on careful inspection of the pancreas and determination of the adequacy of the ex vivo flush. Our results suggest that the current pancreas donor pool may be expanded substantially.     

Living donor renal transplantation: recent developments and perspectives

Renal transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients of all ages with end-stage renal disease. Life expectancy of the population in general is increasing consistently, as is the age of the dialysis population. Consequently, the average ages of kidney donors and recipients are rising. The combination of a growing number of patients with end-stage renal disease and a shortage of organs poses a significant challenge to the transplant community. Donor shortage is associated with unfavorable consequences (e.g. prolonged waiting time, and compromised graft and patient survival). As such, multidirectional efforts are required to expand the donor pool. Increasing the frequency of living donation seems to be an efficient solution. Living donation is associated with superior results for the recipient, and relatively benign long-term outcomes for donors. Reluctance to use organs from living donors whose eligibility was previously considered marginal (e.g. elderly donors) is declining. Although increased donor age is associated with reduced graft survival rates, this should not preclude use of older living donors; transplantation is definitely superior to remaining on dialysis. Thorough, standardized evaluation and careful screening for premorbid conditions in both elderly donors and elderly recipients are essential. Here, we present various options for expanding the living donor pool, with emphasis on the utilization of elderly living donors and transplantation in elderly recipients.     

Improving the rate of organ donation

BACKGROUND: Organ shortage is a major problem in transplantation. Many potential donors are still lost due to a lack of information and communication. Many transplantation centers report a major donor increase after introducing new donor policies. The aim of this study was to evaluate in retrospective fashion a new donor policy in our region. METHODS: For the past 10 years all reported donors from intensive care units (ICUs) in our region were evaluated. Our new policy had 2 main steps: accepting more marginal grafts and using a transplantation representative. The goal was the improved communication with ICUs to support physicians involved in donor care. A public information program was also implemented. RESULTS: In the first year, numbers of donors obviously improved (+60.5%) and remained stable the following year. The mean donor age increased to 41.56 years. The donor pool showed mainly an improved kidney-donation rate (+53%) with also an increase in multiorgan donation (+37%). One year posttransplantation survival was not negatively influenced by this donor pool. As expected, transplantation activities increased notably, particularly liver transplantation (+31.11%) but also kidney transplantation (+26.73%). DISCUSSION: Many donors are lost because physicians in charge of brain dead patients are not fully informed about modified donation criteria. The reason for this is a lack of information and communication by transplantation units. Improved surgical techniques and better preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative treatment have yielded better results with marginal grafts. Immediate graft function in recipients of suboptimal grafts may be delayed, but without a significantly negative impact on patient and graft survival. Because the age of organ recipients is steadily increasing with fewer contraindications for transplants, more organs will be needed.     

Kidney transplantation from cadaveric donors unsuitable for other centers and older than 60 years of age

INTRODUCTION: The demand for kidney transplants and the improvement in recipient outcomes over the last years have stimulated surgeons to expand the criteria for usable donor organs, by accepting older patients to expand their donor pool. We herein report our experience with kidney transplants from donors aged older than 60 years, who have been declined by other transplantation centers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty kidney transplantations were performed with grafts procured from donors aged older than 60 years. Forty-five patients received a single kidney graft (SKG) and 15 received a dual kidney graft (DKG). Mean donor age was 62 years for SKG and 64 years for DKG. Double kidney transplantations were performed with the ipsilateral allocation of both grafts. RESULTS: No primary graft nonfunction occurred. Delayed graft function was observed in 22 SKG (48.8%) and in 7 DKG (46.6%). Acute rejection rates were 9% for SKG and 0% for DKG. One-year patient survival rates were 95% and 100% for SKG and DKG, respectively. Mean serum creatinine levels at 1-year posttransplantation were 1.9 mg/dL for SKG and 1.3 mg/dL for DKG. There were no surgical postoperative complications and mortality. Death censored 1-year graft survival rate was 88% for SKG and 94% for DKG. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with marginal donors who have been declined by other transplantation centers has demonstrated that such organs, with accurate selection criteria, could be safely allocated to elderly recipients with no increase in postoperative complications, guaranteeing satisfactory results in the short and medium term, allowing a significant improvement in the number of transplants.     

Outcome in emotionally related living kidney donor transplantation

Background. The growing shortage of cadaver kidneys, the limited possibilities to expand the living related donor pool and the good results obtained in our centre with poorly matched cadaver kidneys, led us in 1991 to begin accepting highly motivated, unrelated, living kidney donors who had a strong emotional bond with the recipients. Methods. Between 1 January 1991 and 1 January 1996, 46 potential living kidney donors and their emotionally related recipients were evaluated. Twenty-three cases were accepted for renal transplantation after thorough somatic and psychological evaluation. The mean post-transplant follow-up until 1 April 1996 was of 28±3 months. Compatible blood groups and a negative cross-match were mandatory, but no minimal HLA matching was required. Results. There was a 50% drop-out rate following the initial screening. The main reasons for not performing transplantation were immunological contraindications in 39% of the cases, somatic in 30.5%, psychological in 26% and socioeconomic in 4.5%. In the accepted group of recipients, 48% (11/23) received transplants without chronic dialysis. Donor survival was 91%; two deaths unrelated to nephrectomy occurred 1 year after donation. The 2-year actuarial recipient and graft survivals were 100% and 91% respectively, compared to 99% (recipients) and 93% (grafts) in the non-HLA-identical living related kidney transplant group, and to 93% (recipients) and 83% (grafts) in the cadaver kidney transplant group. Recipient rehabilitation was completed after 4±1 months. Emotionally related donors returned to work 5±2 weeks after nephrectomy, and no donor regretted his decision, even in the case of failure. Conclusions. Kidney transplantation from emotionally related living donors represents a valuable option, allowing more patients with end-stage renal disease to avoid chronic dialysis. Recipient and graft outcome were superior to cadaver kidney transplantation. Motivated and emotionally related donors should be allowed to donate one of their kidneys provided that they are carefully selected and thoroughly informed.     

Use of elderly donors (> 60 years) for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: As the demand for liver transplantation has become greater than the availability of donor livers, the criteria for donor selection or rejection are more important than ever before. In view of an increasing number of patients on the waiting list, some centres are expanding their donor pool by relaxing the criteria, such as by using organs from elderly (> 60 years) brainstem-dead donors. In this study, we reviewed our experience of using elderly brain-dead donor livers, investigating the potential prognostic factors of the donor, and analysing the influence of donor age on early graft function and graft survival. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 106 cadaveric donor liver transplantations in 98 patients. Seven patients (6.6%, 7 vs 106) received livers from donors older than 60 years. Pre-transplantation characteristics of donors and the outcome of recipients were evaluated. Donor prognostic factors were analysed using Cox univariate analysis and confirmed by a multivariate forward stepwise Cox model. Early graft function was compared between recipients of grafts from donors older and younger than 60 years. RESULTS: There were no primary non-functions or re-transplants in the group receiving elderly grafts. Early graft function was similar in patients with grafts from elderly and younger donors. Univariate analysis demonstrated that prognostic factors had no relationship with long-term recipient survival. The 3-month and 1-year cumulative graft survival rates were 100% and 82% in the elderly graft group and 84% and 83% in the younger graft group, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test indicated that there was no difference in graft and patient survival rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Old age is not a contraindication for liver donation. Liver grafts from donors older than 60 years can be used safely.     

Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from marginal donors

Long-term survival of kidneys from suboptimal donors is known to be not as good as that from optimal ones. However, the shortage of donors has led many transplant centers to consider accepting older donors with comorbidities. We analyzed 238 patients who received deceased donor renal transplants in the period 2000-2005. The recipients were matched to be no more than 15 years older or younger than the corresponding donors. Among them 125 received a single and 18 a double transplantation from donors considered marginal, according to UNOS criteria for expanded criteria donor (ECD). Most kidneys were evaluated with a pretransplant biopsy, using the scoring system introduced by Karpinski in 1999. The analysis indicated clearly better results in the non-ECD group: both patients and graft survival rates were 10% higher at 1, 2, and 3 years. However, the ECD group showed satisfactory outcomes, confirming the utility of this procedure. The long-term survival rates of single or double grafts from marginal donors are satisfactory, confirming the practice of allocating kidneys after a preimplantation histological evaluation, allowing expansion of the donor pool and providing older patients access to the waiting lists.     

Liver transplantation from an uncontrolled non-heart-beating donor maintained on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Liver transplantation, a definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease, has achieved excellent results. However, potential recipients on the waiting list outnumber donors. To expand the donor pool, marginal grafts from older donors, steatotic livers, and non-heart-beating liver donors (NHBD) have been used for transplantation. Reducing the warm ischemia time of NHBD is the critical factor in organs preservation. Liver transplantation using grafts from NHBD have been reported to display a high incidence of primary graft nonfunction and biliary complications. The authors report a liver graft donor who was maintained on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) after successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Core body temperature was 5 degrees C. Procurement of the liver using a rapid flush technique was performed 4 hours after instituting ECMO. Graft function recovered fully after transplantation. In conclusion, ECMO may be used to reduce warm ischemia time in liver grafts obtained from uncontrolled NHBD, thereby increasing graft salvage rates.     

Kidney transplantation from marginal donors

AIM: The increasing demand for transplantation and the shortage of available organs limit the success of organ transplant programs. The use of marginal donors to expand the donor pool is receiving increased attention. We reviewed a 28-month experience of kidney transplants from marginal donors to assess the impact on patient and graft survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2001 to May 2003, 78 kidney transplants were performed, including 50 grafts from cadaver donors and 28 from living donors with 3 patients receiving a double kidney transplant. The patients were divided into 4 groups: 31 patients received a kidney from an ideal cadaver donor (group 1a); 19 patients received a graft from a marginal cadaver donor (group 1b); 19 patients received an ideal living related kidney (group 2a); and 9 patients received a marginal living kidney graft (group 2b). RESULTS: Twenty-eight grafts from marginal donors were transplanted with an average follow-up of 16 months (range, 1-28 months). The graft survival rates for groups 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b were 93%, 79%, 100%, and 100% and patient survival rates were 96%, 89%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the observation that use of marginal donors has been associated with a worse outcome compared with ideal donors, we of such grafts resulted in improved quality of life and survival expectancy compared with maintenance dialysis. The marginal kidney donors represent a feasible way to improve the donor pool.     

Patients’ preferences in transplantation from marginal donors: results of a discrete choice experiment

To increase the donor pool, the strategy of transplantation from “marginal” donors was developed though patients’ preferences about these donors were insufficiently known. The preferences of patients registered on the waiting list or already transplanted in eight transplant teams covering four main organs (i.e., kidney, liver, heart, and lung) were evaluated using the discrete choice experiment method. In each left during 2 days, patients were interviewed on four scenarios. Of 178 eligible patients, 167 were interviewed; 40% accepted marginal graft in their own situation and 89% at least in one of the scenarios. Imagining urgent situations or rare profiles with difficult access to transplantation, respectively, 86% and 71% accepted these grafts. Most (76%) preferred to be informed about these grafts and 43% preferred to be involved in decision. The emergency [OR = 1.24; 95% CI: (1.06–1.45)] and the hazardousness [OR = 0.88; 95% CI: (0.78–0.99)] of the transplantation were factors independently associated with marginal graft acceptance. Most patients preferred to be informed and to be involved in the decision. Marginal grafts could be more accepted by patients in critical medical situations or perceiving their situation as critical. Physicians’ practices in transplantation should be reconsidered taking into account individual preferences. This study was performed in a single country and thus reflects the cultural bias and practice thereof.     

One hundred in situ split-liver transplantations: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of graft and recipient survival from a single-institution series of in situ split-liver transplantations and compare outcomes to living donor and whole organs for adults and children. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Split-liver transplantation is a surgical technique that creates 2 allografts from a single cadaver donor. We have applied split-liver transplantation to all indications and categories of medical urgency for initial as well as retransplantation to expand the current donor pool and decrease reliance upon living donation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 100 consecutive in situ split-liver transplantations yielding a left lateral segment and right trisegment graft that were performed at the University of California Los Angeles between 9/91 and 02/03. These 100 transplantations generated 190 allografts for transplantation into 105 children and 60 adults, with the sharing of 25 allografts among transplant centers across the United States. Outcomes and incidence of complications were compared with living donor and whole organ recipients receiving liver transplantation during the same time period with independent predictors of split-liver graft and recipient survival identified by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of biliary and vascular complications observed in recipients of left lateral segment grafts created by split-liver transplantation was not statistically different from recipients of left lateral segment grafts created from living donation or children receiving whole-organ grafts from pediatric donors. Kaplan-Meier survival estimations of left lateral segment graft and recipient survival also demonstrated no statistical difference among split-liver, living donor, and whole-organ recipients. Right trisegment grafts from split-liver transplantation demonstrated a 10% incidence of biliary and 7% incidence of vascular complications. Long-term graft function was excellent with patient and graft survival equal to 1086 recipients of cadaver whole-organ grafts from donors ages 10-40 years who underwent transplant operations during the same time period. Predictors of split-liver transplantation graft and recipient survival included United Network for Organ Sharing status at transplantation, indication, occurrence of a complication, donor creatinine, and donor length of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Split-liver transplantation is an effective mechanism for immediate expansion of the cadaver donor pool that can reduce dependence upon living donation in adults and children.     

Exchange donor program in kidney transplantation

The donor organ shortage has been one of the major barriers to kidney transplantation in Korea, even though there has been a small but steady flow of cadaveric kidney donations for the last decade. To expand the donor pool in kidney transplantation, we have developed the exchange donor program at our institution and in Korea. The donor exchange program was first started for end-stage renal disease patients who had willing but incompatible related donors due to positive lymphocyte cross-match. The kidney transplantations were performed using exchanged kidneys between two families with successful results. Since this success, we have expanded the donor pool by accepting close relatives, spouses, friends of recipients, and willing voluntary donors as candidates for exchange donors with careful donor screening procedures. It helps relieve stress on donor supply. Particularly in those countries where brain death has not been socially or legally accepted, living donors including related, unrelated, and exchange donors should be considered as potential donors for kidney transplantation to relieve the pressure on donor organ shortage.     

Kidney transplantation using living donors over age 65

Efforts to increase the donor pool of available organs have resulted in some unconventional kidney transplantation procedures. One of these is the use of elderly donors for both living and cadaver kidney transplantations. The aim of this study was to review our experience with kidney transplants from living elderly donors. During a period of 10 years, 70 living renal transplantations were performed. In 32 transplants the age of the donor was above 65 years (mean 69 +/- 4 years, range: 65 to 81 years) and in 10 of these 32 transplants the age of the donor was over 70 years. The survival rate was compared with that of 38 transplants from younger donors (mean age 51 +/- 6 years, range: 24 to 59 years). The time to cold and warm ischemia, the preservation procedure and time to anastomosis of blood vessels were comparable in both groups of donors. Immunosuppression included a sequential quadruple protocol, using thymoglobulin (ATG), prednisolone (PRED), azathioprin (AZA) and cyclosporin A (CsA), which replaced ATG/PRED after day seven. A triple drug maintenance therapy (AZA, PRED, CsA) was used in all recipients. Kaplan-Meier survival curves at 1, 3 and 5 years showed that graft survival was 88%, 79% and 64% respectively for grafts from the advanced age donor group and 92%, 82% and 68% respectively for grafts from the younger donor group. The difference was slightly statistically significant (p < 0.05). Functioning of the graft was delayed in six patients who had received grafts from elderly donors and in one patient who had received a graft from a young donor. Despite worse results in transplantation with grafts from elderly donors, we consider this population as an important source of kidneys, which might help solve the present organ shortage, especially in our region.     

Pancreas transplantation from marginal donors

BACKGROUND: Marginal donor organs are a supplementary source of grafts that has not been fully exploited for pancreas transplantation (PTx). METHODS: A total of 100 PTx were performed with grafts procured from either 48 nonmarginal donors (NMD) or 52 marginal donors (MD), namely age greater than 45 years and/or severe hemodynamic instability at the time of procurement. PTx outcome was evaluated as the incidence of delayed endocrine pancreas function (DEPF), the complication rate, and the patient and graft survivals. RESULTS: The DEPF rate was 6.2% for NMD as compared to 0 for MD (P >.05). Relaparotomy rate was 12.5% for NMD and 9.6% for MD (P >.05). Actuarial 1-year graft survival was 91.7% and 94.2% for NMD and MD, respectively (P >.05). Equivalent figures for patients were 97.9% and 98.1%, respectively (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreas from MD may be safely employed and significantly expand the donor pool for PTx.     

Lack of impact of human leukocyte antigen matching in living donor kidney transplantation: experience at Akdeniz University

Lack of expansion of the deceased donor supply has resulted in a severe shortage of organs worldwide. Spousal donors are one possible alternative organ source for patients on the kidney transplant waiting list. Despite human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) matching between recipients and unrelated donors being poor, the reported survival rates for these grafts, including spouses, are comparable to those for grafts from living related donors and higher than those for deceased donor kidneys. In 2000, our renal transplantation program began accepting living donor-recipient pairs with one or zero HLA matches. The purpose of this study was to assess this policy for accepting living unrelated donors. The 3-year graft survival rates for the transplants from living unrelated donors were similar to that for transplants from living related donors (log-rank = 0.078). The number of HLA mismatches did not significantly influence the survival rates for either of these groups of living donor transplants. Multivariate analysis revealed that dialysis duration (P = .057) and recipient age (P = .066) negatively influenced patient survival in living donor kidney transplantation. The graft and patient survival rates for the donor transplantations were higher than those for deceased donor transplantations. In light of these findings and considering the increasing problem of organ shortage, we conclude that living unrelated kidney transplantation should be performed, with strict guidelines. Spousal donation is the most favorable form of living unrelated renal transplantation.     

Live donor renal allograft in end-stage renal failure patients from immunoglobulin A nephropathy

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to attempt to resolve two important issues, i.e. to determine (1) whether the course of recurrent immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) is benign, and (2) whether it is advisable to use a related donor. METHODS: We evaluated the long-term outcome, in terms of recurrence and graft survival, after live related or unrelated donor renal transplantation, and assessed the validity of the use of related donors in 90 grafts in 89 IgAN patients. RESULTS: Ten-year graft survival for IgAN patients was 66%, compared with 84% for 107 reference recipients who had other kinds of glomerulonephritis (GN), and with 69% in 90 other recipients who had non-GN renal failure (P=0.27). In 43 grafts, 54 event graft biopsies were performed, documenting the presence of mesangial IgA deposits in 19 of those grafts. In eight grafts, lesions were accompanied by chronic rejection (CR). Ten-year cumulative recurrence was 44%. Ten grafts were lost: by CR (n=3) or acute rejection (n=1) in 24 recurrence-free recipients, by CR (n=2) or recurrence (n=2) in 19 recurrent patients, and by patient death (n=2) in 46 patients devoid of graft biopsy. We found no difference in 10-year graft survival between the recurrent and recurrence-free patients (63% vs. 74%, P=0.98), or the proportion of related donors (68% vs. 83%, P=0.25). The presence or matching of HLA B12, B35, or DR4 did not affect the recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence increased to 44% with longer follow-up, but this did not limit the graft outcome. Recurrence was not affected by the kind of live donor. We conclude that live related or unrelated kidneys should be offered to IgAN patients.     

The use of marginal grafts in liver transplantation

Because of the shortage of organ supplies, more transplant programs have begun to use marginal grafts in liver transplantation. A number of single-center experiences with marginal grafts have yielded encouraging results, but recent analyses using nationwide databases show that outcomes are inferior to results with normal whole-liver grafts. Use of marginal grafts is still acceptable, however, and plays an important role in expanding the donor pool and decreasing mortality on the waiting list. In the broadest terms, national data and single-center experiences show that: (1) there is no limit in donor age for liver transplantation, (2) appropriate selection of steatotic livers improves outcomes, (3) prolonged graft ischemia is a preventable factor, (4) livers from donors with hepatitis B or C virus can be safely transplanted, and (5) adequate prophylaxis prevents recurrence of hepatitis B without significant graft loss. In addition, grafts procured after cardiac death are another growing source of marginal grafts. Transmission of malignancy from donors is rare but life-threatening. Reduced-size grafts from living-donor or split-liver transplantation have shown similar outcomes to whole-liver transplantation. In this review, we will discuss the current status of the utility of these marginal grafts in liver transplantation.     

Liver transplantation using donors older than 80 years: a single-center experience

AIM: The shortage of organs for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has forced transplantation centers to expand the donor pool by using donors traditionally labeled as "extended criteria donors." One such example is OLT using a donor with advanced age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 10 patients who received a liver graft from cadaveric donors older than 80 years. We analyzed pretransplantation donor and recipient characteristics, as well as the evolution of the recipients. RESULTS: All 10 donors were older than 80 years (median age, 83.5; range, 80-93). No steatosis (>30%) was accepted in the older donor group. Medium follow-up was 19.5 months. The most frequent cause for OLT was hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis (8/10 patients). We had 1 case of primary nonfunction, 1 patient died immediately after surgery because of extrahepatic complications (cardiac arrest), and 2 other patients had a severe HCV recurrence and died after 1 and 2 years from OLT, respectively. Five patients had HCV recurrence and biliary complications were present in 60% of the patients. No cases of acute or chronic rejection were described. Overall survival rates after 1 and 3 years were 80% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Old donor age is not an absolute contraindication to OLT. Liver grafts from donors older than 80 years can be used knowing that there is a high risk of postoperative complications. Furthermore, the increased risk of developing severe HCV recurrence, related to older donor age, suggests that such livers should be used in HCV-negative recipients.     

Intermediate outcomes of dual renal allografts: the University of Washington experience

PURPOSE: The increased survival advantage of renal transplantation with end stage renal disease combined with an increasing incidence of renal disease fuel an increasing disparity between supply and demand for transplantable kidneys. Despite efforts to increase cadaveric organ donation through education and publicity, the number of cadaveric kidneys transplanted has not increased and in the last year was surpassed by kidneys transplanted from living donors. In an effort to maximize cadaver organ donors use of kidneys from expanded criteria donors has been investigated. In select cases both donor kidneys have been transplanted into a single recipient, which is called dual renal transplant. We report on the 4-year dual renal transplant graft and patient outcomes and compare these to age matched single cadaver kidney transplants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 10 dual renal transplant recipients and 10 age matched single cadaver kidney recipients was performed. All patients underwent transplantation at our university between January 1996 and February 1998. Mean followup was 4.1 years (range 2.5 to 5.1) for the dual kidney recipients and 3.6 (0.0 to 5.5) years for the control group. RESULTS: Of the 10 dual renal transplant recipients 7 remain alive and 3 died of nontransplant related causes. Of the 10 single recipients 8 are alive, 1 died of postoperative complications and 1 died of nontransplant related causes. When censored for death with a functioning graft, 7 of 10 dual grafts are functioning at followup with a mean creatinine clearance of 39.4 ml. per minute (range 16.1 to 65.9) and mean serum creatinine of 2.0 mg./dl. (1.1 to 3.9). If not censored for death with a functioning graft, 50% of dual grafts are functioning. Of the 3 graft losses 2 were due to recurrent disease and 1 was attributed to chronic rejection. In the control group 8 of 10 grafts are functioning at current followup (regardless of censoring for death with a functioning graft) with a mean creatinine clearance of 48.7 ml. per minute (range 23.4 to 66.5) and mean serum creatinine of 1.6 mg./dl. (1.2 to 2.4). Of the 2 graft losses 1 resulted from postoperative complications and 1 was due to chronic rejection. CONCLUSIONS At the 4-year followup patients undergoing dual renal transplant have comparable graft function, incidence of graft loss and survival compared to the control group. However, because of our small sample size, differences in the 2 groups may be significant in a larger study. Additional studies need to be conducted to determine if this practice represents an acceptable use of kidneys from expanded criteria donors.