Short- and Long-Term Outcomes with the Use of Kidneys and Livers Donated after Cardiac Death

The shortage of deceased donor kidneys and livers for transplantation has prompted the use of organs from donors deceased after cardiac death (DCD). We used the UNOS database to examine patient and graft survival following transplantation of DCD organs compared to those following grafts from donors deceased after brain death (DBD; for livers, grafts from donors < 60 years old were labeled '< 60 yrs'). Of 44035 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, 1177 (3%) received a DCD kidney. There was no difference in patient or graft survival at 5 years (DCD vs. DBD: 81.3% vs. 80.8% and 66.9% vs. 66.5%; p = 0.70 and p = 0.52 respectively). Of 24688-deceased donor liver transplant recipients, 345 (1.4%) were from DCD donors and 20289 (82%) were from '< 60 yrs' DBD donors. Three-year patient and graft survival were inferior in the DCD group (DCD vs. '< 60 yrs' DBD: 77% vs. 80% and 65% vs. 75%; p = 0.016 and p < 0.0001 respectively) but were comparable to current alternatives, '>/= 60 yrs' DBD livers (donor age >/= 60) and split livers. DCD livers are a reasonable option when death is imminent. Our study demonstrates good outcomes using DCD kidneys and livers and encourages their use.     

Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes

Singh RP, Farney AC, Rogers J, Zuckerman J, Reeves‐Daniel A, Hartmann E, Iskandar S, Adams P, Stratta RJ. Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 255–264. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Introduction: Delayed graft function (DGF) is more common in recipients of kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors compared to donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Methods: Single‐center retrospective study to evaluate the impact of DGF on controlled (Maastricht category III) DCD donor kidney transplant outcomes. Results: From 10/01 to 6/08, 578 adult deceased donor kidney transplants were performed including 70 (12%) from DCD and 508 (88%) from DBD donors. Mean follow‐up was 36 months. DCD donor kidney transplants had significantly greater rates of DGF (57% DCD vs. 21% DBD, p < 0.0001)) and acute rejection (29% DCD vs. 16% DBD, p = 0.018) compared to DBD donor kidney transplants, but patient and graft survival rates were similar. DBD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 109) had significantly greater rates of death‐censored graft loss (12.5% DCD vs. 31% DBD), primary non‐function (0 DCD vs. 10% DBD) and higher 2 year mean serum creatinine levels (1.4 DCD vs. 2.7 mg/dL DBD) compared to DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 40, all p < 0.04). On univariate analysis, the presence of acute rejection and older donor age were the only significant risk factors for death‐censored graft loss in DCD donor kidney transplants, whereas DGF was not a risk factor. Conclusion: Despite higher rates of DGF and acute rejection in DCD donor kidney transplants, subsequent outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF are better than in DBD donor kidney transplants experiencing DGF, and similar to outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants without DGF.     

Local Expansion of Donation After Circulatory Death Kidney Transplant Activity Improves Waitlisted Outcomes and Addresses Inequities of Access to Transplantation

In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, but marked regional variation persists. We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted outcomes for a single center. Between 2002–2003 and 2011–2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney‐only transplants were performed at the Cambridge Transplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01). Compared with U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days; p < 0.0001), and our center had higher transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths. This was most apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years), whereas younger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants. Death‐censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger and older recipients, although transplantation conferred a survival benefit from listing for only younger recipients. Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcomes for younger patients and addresses inequity of access to transplantation for older recipients.     

Risk Factors for Graft Survival After Liver Transplantation from Donation After Cardiac Death Donors: An Analysis of OPTN/UNOS Data

Due to increasing use of allografts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors, we evaluated DCD liver transplants and impact of recipient and donor factors on graft survival. Liver transplants from DCD donors reported to UNOS were analyzed against donation after brain death (DBD) donor liver transplants performed between 1996 and 2003. We defined a recipient cumulative relative risk (RCRR) using significant risk factors identified from a Cox regression analysis: age; medical condition at transplantation; regraft status; dialysis received and serum creatinine. Graft survival from DCD donors (71% at 1 year and 60% at 3 years) were significantly inferior to DBD donors (80% at 1 year and 72% at 3 years, p < 0.001). Low-risk recipients (RCRR < or = 1.5) with low-risk DCD livers (DWIT < 30 min and CIT < 10 h, n = 226) achieved graft survival rates (81% and 67% at 1 and 3 years, respectively) not significantly different from recipients with DBD allografts (80% and 72% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, log-rank p = 0.23). Liver allografts from DCD donors may be used to increase the cadaveric donor pool, with favorable graft survival rates achieved when low-risk grafts are transplanted in a low-risk setting. Whether transplantation of these organs in low-risk recipients provides a survival benefit compared to the waiting list is unknown.     

Liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death: a single center experience

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) from controlled donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors has increased steadily during the past decade because of the donor shortage in the United States. Although early reports of LT from DCD donors provided evidence for acceptable outcomes, long-term graft and patient survival rates from these procedures have been reviewed only recently. METHODS: From February 1990 to June 2006, 1209 LTs were performed from donation after brain death (DBD) donors, and 24 were performed from DCD donors at our institution. Detailed review of donor and recipient characteristics, and survival rates were evaluated in the two groups. RESULTS: One- and 3-year patient survival was similar in both groups, (DCD 86.8%, 81.7% vs. DBD 84.0%, 76.0%, respectively; P=0.713). Graft survival appeared inferior in the DCD group compared with the DBD group at 1 year (69.1% vs. 78.7%) and 3 years (58.6% vs. 70.2%), but there was no statistical difference (P=0.082). There were no significant differences in hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis, primary nonfunction, and biliary stricture between the two groups. All cases with biliary stricture in DCD group finally led to graft loss, and all survived with retransplantation. CONCLUSION: The outcome of LT from DCD donors remains acceptable in our institution. Although biliary complication rate was similar in two groups, the consequence of this complication in DCD was more severe and often led to graft loss. Close observation of biliary complications after LT from DCD donors would be beneficial.     

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C from donation after cardiac death donors: an analysis of OPTN/UNOS data

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation is increasing largely because of a shortage of organs. However, there are almost no data that have specifically assessed the impact of using DCD livers for HCV patients. We retrospectively studied adult primary DCD liver transplantation (630 HCV, 1164 non-HCV) and 54 129 donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation between 2002 and 2009 using the UNOS/OPTN database. With donation after brain death (DBD) livers, HCV recipients had significantly inferior graft survival compared to non-HCV recipients (p < 0.0001). Contrary to DBD donors, DCD livers used in HCV patients showed no difference in graft survival compared to non-HCV patients (p = 0.5170). Cox models showed DCD livers and HCV disease had poorer graft survival (HR = 1.80 and 1.28, p < 0.0001, respectively). However, the hazard ratio of DCD and HCV interaction was 0.80 (p = 0.02) and these results suggest that DCD livers on HCV disease do not fare worse than DCD livers on non-HCV disease. The graft survival of recent years (2006-2009) was significantly better than that in former years (2002-2005) (p = 0.0482). In conclusion, DCD liver transplantation for HCV disease showed satisfactory outcomes. DCD liver transplantation can be valuable option for HCV related end-stage liver disease.     

Donation after cardiac death: the University of Wisconsin experience with liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the outcomes of liver transplantation (LTx) from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are equivalent to those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Because of the significant donor organ shortage, more transplant centers are using livers recovered from DCD donors. However, long-term, single-center outcomes of liver transplantation from DCD donors are limited. METHODS: From January 1, 1993, to July 31, 2002, 553 liver transplants were performed from DBD donors and 36 were performed from DCD donors. Differences in event rates between the groups were compared with Kaplan-Meier estimates and the log-rank test. Differences in proportion and differences of means between the groups were compared with Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively. RESULTS: Mean warm ischemic time at recovery in the DCD group was 17.8 +/- 10.6 minutes. The overall rate of biliary strictures was greater in the DCD group at 1 year (33% versus 10%) and 3 years (37% versus 12%; P = 0.0001). The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein stenosis/thrombosis, ischemic-type biliary stricture (ITBS), and primary nonfunction were similar between groups. However, the incidence of both hepatic artery stenosis (16.6% versus 5.4%; P = 0.001) and hepatic abscess and biloma formation (16.7% versus 8.3%; P = 0.04) were greater in the DCD group. Trends toward worse patient and graft survival and increased incidence of ITBS were seen in DCD donors greater than 40 years compared with DCD donors less than 40 years. Overall patient survival at 1 year (DCD, 80%; versus DBD, 91%) and 3 years (DCD, 68%; versus DBD, 84%) was significantly less in the DCD group (P = 0.002). Similarly, graft survival at 1 year (DCD, 67%; versus DBD, 86%) and 3 years (DCD, 56%; versus DBD, 80%) were significantly less in the DCD group (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar rates of primary nonfunction, LTx after controlled DCD resulted in worse patient and graft survival compared with LTx after DBD and increased incidence of biliary complications and hepatic artery stenosis. However, overall results of LTx after controlled DCD are encouraging; and with careful donor and recipient selection, LTx after DCD may successfully increase the donor liver pool.     

Hepatitis C Virus Recurrence Occurs Earlier in Patients Receiving Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplant Grafts Compared With Those Receiving Donation After Brainstem Death Grafts

Introduction

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis remains the commonest indication for liver transplantation worldwide, yet few studies have investigated the impact of donation after circulatory death (DCD) graft use on HCV recurrence and patient outcomes. DCD grafts have augmented the limited donor organ pool and reduced wait-list mortality, although concerns regarding graft longevity and patient outcome persist.

Similar liver transplantation survival with selected cardiac death donors and brain death donors

Background:

The outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) with controlled graft donation after cardiac death (DCD) is usually inferior to that with graft donation after brain death (DBD). This study compared outcomes from OLT with DBD versus controlled DCD donors with predefined restrictive acceptance criteria.

Methods:

All adult recipients in the Netherlands in 2001–2006 with full‐size OLT from DCD (n = 55) and DBD (n = 471) donors were included. Kaplan–Meier, log rank and Cox regression analyses were used.

Results:

One‐ and 3‐year patient survival rates were similar for DCD (85 and 80 per cent) and DBD (86·3 and 80·8 per cent) transplants (P = 0·763), as were graft survival rates (74 and 68 per cent versus 80·4 and 74·5 per cent; P = 0·212). The 3‐year cumulative percentage of surviving grafts developing non‐anastomotic biliary strictures was 31 per cent after DCD and 9·7 per cent after DBD transplantation (P < 0·001). The retransplantation rate was similar overall (P = 0·081), but that for biliary stricture was higher in the DCD group (P < 0·001). Risk factors for 1‐year graft loss after DBD OLT were transplant centre, recipient warm ischaemia time and donor with severe head trauma. After DCD OLT they were transplant centre, donor warm ischaemia time and cold ischaemia time. DCD graft was a risk factor for non‐anastomotic biliary stricture.

Conclusion:

OLT using controlled DCD grafts and restrictive criteria can result in patient and graft survival rates similar to those of DBD OLT, despite a higher risk of biliary stricture. Copyright © 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Expanding the Donor Kidney Pool: Utility of Renal Allografts Procured in a Setting of Uncontrolled Cardiac Death

The chronic shortage of deceased kidney donors has led to increased utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys, the majority of which are procured in a controlled setting. The objective of this study is to evaluate transplantation outcomes from uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) donors and evaluate their utility as a source of donor kidneys. From January 1995 to December 2004, 75,865 kidney-alone transplants from donation after brain death (DBD) donors and 2136 transplants from DCD donors were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing. Among the DCD transplants, 1814 were from controlled and 216 from uncontrolled DCD donors. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. The incidence of delayed graft function in controlled DCD (cDCD) was 42% and in uDCD kidneys was 51%, compared to only 24% in kidneys from DBD donors (p < 0.001). The overall graft and patient survival of DCD donors was similar to that of DBD donor kidneys (p = 0.66; p = 0.88). Despite longer donor warm and cold ischemic times, overall graft and patient survival of uDCD donors was comparable to that of cDCD donors (p = 0.65, p = 0.99). Concerted efforts should be focused on procurement of uDCD donors, which can provide another source of quality deceased donor kidneys.     

Factors affecting graft survival after liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors is an increasingly common approach for expansion of the donor organ supply. However, transplantation with DCD livers results in inferior graft survival. In this study, we examined donor and recipient characteristics that are associated with poor allograft outcomes and present a set of criteria that permit allograft survival that is comparable to that of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts in both low- and high-risk recipients. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Liver Transplantation Registry between January 1996 and March 2006 was investigated. Adult DCD liver transplants (n = 874) were included. RESULTS: A DCD risk index was developed using the statistically significant factors from a multivariate Cox model: history of previous transplantation, life support status at transplantation, donor age, donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). Favorable DCD donor criteria were donor age < or =45 years, DWIT < or =15 min, and CIT < or =10 hr. Four risk groups were developed based upon index scores that showed different graft survival. Graft survival of the favorable DCD group (84.9% at 1 year, 75.2% at 3 years, and 69.4% at 5 years) was comparable to that for DBD liver transplantation irrespective of recipient condition. Increasing donor age was more highly predictive of poor outcomes in DCD compared to DBD, especially in recipients in poor preoperative condition. CONCLUSIONS: DCD livers from young donors with short DWIT and CIT should be given greater consideration in order to expand the number of available donor organs.     

Pediatric liver and kidney transplantation with allografts from DCD donors: A review of UNOS data

INTRODUCTION: Donation after cardiac death (DCD) is recognized as an important source of allografts to bridge the growing disequilibrium between the number of donors and recipients. Current transplant experience with DCD organs has focused on the adult recipient population, however little is known about the pediatric recipient experience. While there is increasing acceptance of these grafts in adults, transplant centers appear reluctant to use these grafts in the pediatric population. METHODS: We reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 1995-2005 to determine the national experience with pediatric recipients of DCD organs. RESULTS: Among 4026 renal transplants performed in children 18 years and younger, 26 (0.6%) received a renal allograft from a DCD donor. Ten (38.5%) received kidney allografts from pediatric donors (age < or = 18) and 16 (61.5%) from adult donors (age > 18 years). Graft survival at one and five years was 82.5%, 74.3% for kidneys from DCD donors compared to 89.6%, 64.8% from brain dead donors (DBD) (P = 0.7). Among 4991 liver transplants, 19 (0.4%) were from DCD donors. Sixteen patients (84.2%) received livers from pediatric donors and three (15.8%) from adult donors. Graft survival at one and five years was 89.2%, 79.3% for livers from DCD, compared to 75.6%, 65.8% for DBD (P = 0.3). CONCLUSION: The use of DCD donors in the pediatric population is very limited; however graft survival is comparable to DBD grafts. Although pediatric centers may have been reluctant to utilize this donor source, this limited experience demonstrates that the select use of DCD organs can produce acceptable and durable graft survival in the pediatric population.     

Experience in renal and extrarenal transplantation with donation after cardiac death donors with selective use of extracorporeal support

BACKGROUND: Most reports of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are exclusive to kidney transplantation and report high rates of delayed graft function (DGF). STUDY DESIGN: From April 1, 2003, to October 3, 2007, we performed 53 kidney transplantations and 4 simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantations from DCD donors. All DCD donor kidneys were managed with pulsatile perfusion preservation, and all simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation donors were managed with extracorporeal support. RESULTS: Of 53 DCD kidney transplantations, 44 (83%) were from standard criteria donors (SCD) and 9 (17%) from expanded criteria donors (ECD). With a mean followup of 12 months, actual patient and kidney graft survival rates were 94% and 87%, respectively. Patient and graft survival rates were 100% in the 4 simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantations. Incidence of DGF was 57% (60% without versus 20% with extracorporeal support, p = 0.036). Comparison of the 53 DCD donor kidney transplantations with 316 concurrent donation after brain death (DBD) donor adult kidney transplantations (178 SCD, 138 ECD) revealed no differences in demographics or outcomes, except that the DCD donor group had fewer ECDs (17% DCD versus 44% DBD; p = 0.0002), fewer 0-antigen mismatch kidney transplantations (7.5% DCD versus 19% DBD; p = 0.05), and more kidneys preserved with pulsatile perfusion (100% DCD versus 52% DBD; p < 0.0001). Incidences of DGF (57% DCD versus 19% DBD; p < 0.0001) and acute rejection (19% DCD versus 10% DBD; p = 0.10) were higher in the DCD donor group, which resulted in a longer initial length of stay (mean 11 days DCD versus 8.0 days DBD; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high incidence of DGF in the absence of extracorporeal support and greater initial resource use, comparable short-term results can be achieved with DCD and DBD donor kidney transplantations.     

Liver Transplantation Using Grafts From Donors After Circulatory Death: A Propensity Score–Matched Study From a Single Center

The use of livers from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasing, but concerns exist regarding outcomes following use of grafts from “marginal” donors. To compare outcomes in transplants using DCD and donation after brain death (DBD), propensity score matching was performed for 973 patients with chronic liver disease and/or malignancy who underwent primary whole‐liver transplant between 2004 and 2014 at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. Primary end points were overall graft and patient survival. Secondary end points included postoperative, biliary and vascular complications. Over 10 years, 234 transplants were carried out using DCD grafts. Of the 187 matched DCDs, 82.9% were classified as marginal per British Transplantation Society guidelines. Kaplan–Meier analysis of graft and patient survival found no significant differences for either outcome between the paired DCD and DBD patients (p = 0.162 and p = 0.519, respectively). Aspartate aminotransferase was significantly higher in DCD recipients until 48 h after transplant (p < 0.001). The incidences of acute kidney injury and ischemic cholangiopathy were greater in DCD recipients (32.6% vs. 15% [p < 0.001] and 9.1% vs. 1.1% [p < 0.001], respectively). With appropriate recipient selection, the use of DCDs, including those deemed marginal, can be safe and can produce outcomes comparable to those seen using DBD grafts in similar recipients.     

Safety and Outcomes in 100 Consecutive Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplants Using a Protocol That Includes Thrombolytic Therapy

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) reportedly yields inferior survival and increased complication rates compared with donation after brain death (DBD). We compare 100 consecutive DCD LT using a protocol that includes thrombolytic therapy (late DCD group) to an historical DCD group (early DCD group n = 38) and a cohort of DBD LT recipients (DBD group n = 435). Late DCD LT recipients had better 1‐ and 3‐year graft survival rates than early DCD LT recipients (92% vs. 76.3%, p = 0.03 and 91.4% vs. 73.7%, p = 0.01). Late DCD graft survival rates were comparable to those of the DBD group (92% vs. 93.3%, p = 0.24 and 91.4% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.62). Re‐transplantation occurred in 18.4% versus 1% for the early and late DCD groups, respectively (p = 0.001). Patient survival was similar in all three groups. Ischemic‐type biliary lesions (ITBL) occurred in 5%, 3%, and 0.2% for early DCD, late DCD, and DBD groups, respectively, but unlike in the early DCD group, in the late DCD group ITBL was endoscopically managed and resolved in each case. Using a protocol that includes a thrombolytic therapy, DCD LT yielded patient and graft survival rates comparable to DBD LT.     

More donors or more delayed graft function? A cost‐effectiveness analysis of DCD kidney transplantation

Expansion of the donor pool with expanded criteria donors and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors is essential. DCD grafts result in increased rates of primary non‐function (PNF) and delayed graft function (DGF). However, long‐term patient and graft survival is similar between donation after brain death (DBD) donors and DCD donors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of the use of DCD donors. A Markov‐based decision analytic model was created to simulate outcomes for two wait list strategies: (i) wait list composed of only DBD organs and (ii) wait list combining DBD and DCD organs. Baseline values and ranges were determined from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database and literature review. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model strength and parameter variability. The wait list strategy consisting of DBD donors only provided recipients 5.4 Quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) at $65 000/QALY, whereas a wait list strategy combining DBD + DCD donors provided recipients 6.0 QALYs at a cost of $56 000/QALY. Wait lists with DCD donors provide adequate long‐term survival despite more DGF. This equates to an improvement in quality of life and decreased cost when compared to remaining on dialysis for any period of time.     

Donation after cardiac death as a strategy to increase deceased donor liver availability

OBJECTIVE: This study examines donation after cardiac death (DCD) practices and outcomes in liver transplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Livers procured from DCD donors have recently been used to increase the number of deceased donors and bridge the gap between limited organ supply and the pool of waiting list candidates. Comprehensive evaluation of this practice and its outcomes has not been previously reported. METHODS: A national cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Time to graft failure (including death) was modeled by Cox regression, adjusted for relevant donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: DCD livers were used for 472 (2%) of 24,070 transplants. Annual DCD liver activity increased from 39 in 2000 to 176 in 2004. The adjusted relative risk of DCD graft failure was 85% higher than for DBD grafts (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-2.26; P < 0.001), corresponding to 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates of 83.0%, 70.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (vs. 89.2%, 83.0%, and 75.0% for DBD recipients). There was no significant association between transplant program DCD liver transplant volume and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The annual number of DCD livers used for transplant has increased rapidly. However, DCD livers are associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure unrelated to modifiable donor or recipient factors. Appropriate recipients for DCD livers have not been fully characterized and recipient informed consent should be obtained before use of these organs.     

心脏死亡供者供肝移植效果的荟萃分析

目的 评估心脏死亡器官捐献(DCD)供肝移植的效果.方法 检索美国国立医学图书馆国际性综合生物医学信息书目数据库(Pubmed/Medline数据库)、Embase数据库和Cochrane图书馆数据库中1950-2011年正式发表的英文文献,选取单中心研究.针对肝移植术后并发症的发生率,人、移植物存活率进行荟萃分析.结果 共纳入13篇单中心研究文献,包括5867例脑死亡器官捐献(DBD)肝移植和619例DCD肝移植.DCD肝移植术后发生胆道并发症的比值比(OR值)为2.5(95％可信区间为2.00～3.12),发生缺血性胆管炎的OR值为14.65(95％可信区间为6.51～32.99),发生原发性移植物无功能(PNF)的OR值为2.12(95％可信区间为1.33～3.36).DCD肝移植和DBD肝移植术后受者总体1年存活率分别为83.8％和87.2％,OR值为0.78(95％可信区间为0.59～1.02);移植物总体1年存活率分别为72.2％和82.4％,OR值为0.55(95％可信区间为0.45～0.68).DCD肝移植和DBD肝移植术后受者总体3年存活率分别为81.5％和78.9％,二者的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);移植物总体3年存活率分别为69.5％和73.6％,OR值为0.73(95％可信区间为0.56～0.94).结论 DCD肝移植术后胆道并发症发生率,尤其是缺血性胆管炎的发生率较高,但术后整体效果与DBD肝移植相当.     

Liver Transplantation Using Donation After Cardiac Death Donors: Long-Term Follow-Up from a Single Center

There is a lack of universally accepted clinical parameters to guide the utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor livers and it is unclear as to which patients would benefit most from these organs. We reviewed our experience in 141 patients who underwent liver transplantation using DCD allografts from 1993 to 2007. Patient outcomes were analyzed in comparison to a matched cohort of 282 patients who received livers from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Patient survival was similar, but 1-, 5- and 10-year graft survival was significantly lower in DCD (69%, 56%, 44%) versus DBD (82%, 73%, 63%) subjects (p < 0.0001). Primary nonfunction and biliary complications were more common in DCD patients, accounting for 67% of early graft failures. A donor warm ischemia time >20 min, cold ischemia time >8 h and donor age >60 were associated with poorer DCD outcomes. There was a lack of survival benefit in DCD livers utilized in patients with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) ≤30 or those not on organ-perfusion support, as graft survival was significantly lower compared to DBD patients. However, DCD and DBD subjects transplanted with MELD >30 or on organ-perfusion support had similar graft survival, suggesting a potentially greater benefit of DCD livers in critically ill patients.     

Impact of donor age on long‐term outcomes after delayed graft function: 10‐year follow‐up

Delayed graft function (DGF) has a negative impact on graft survival in donation after brain death (DBD) but not for donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys. However, older donor age is associated with graft loss in DCD transplants. We sought to examine the interaction between donor age and DGF in DBD kidneys. This is a single‐center, retrospective review of 657 consecutive DBD recipients transplanted between 1990 and 2005. We stratified the cohort by decades of donor age and studied the association between DGF and graft failure using Cox models. The risk of graft loss associated with DGF was not significantly increased for donor age below 60 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12, 1.51, and 0.90, respectively, for age <40, 41–50 and 51–60 years) but significantly increased after 60 years (aHR 2.67; P = 0.019). Analysis of death‐censored graft failure yielded similar results for donor age below 60 years and showed a substantially increased risk with donors above 60 years (aHR 6.98, P = 0.002). This analysis reveals an unexpectedly high impact of older donor age on the association between DGF and renal transplant outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the best use of kidneys from donors above 60 years old, where DGF is expected.