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.     

Advances in pediatric liver and intestinal transplantation

BACKGROUND: Significant progress has been made with liver and intestinal transplantation in pediatric patients. Shortage of whole-organ cadaveric grafts has resulted in a high mortality rate for children awaiting transplantation. New surgical procedures such as split-liver transplantation and living-related liver transplantation have evolved over the last decade to maximize donor utilization in pediatric patients. METHODS: In this article we review the current indications and contraindications for liver and intestinal transplantation in children, the surgical innovations to expand an exceedingly small cadaveric liver pool, postoperative management, and the impact on patient and graft survival. RESULTS: Reduced-size liver transplantation provides children with much needed small grafts; however, split-liver transplantation may eliminate the need for reduced-size and living-related liver transplantation except in urgent situations. CONCLUSION: Liver transplantation is a durable procedure that provides excellent long-term survival. The use of living-related and split-liver transplantation has dramatically reduced the waiting periods for children and improved survival. In the past decade significant progress has been made with intestinal transplantation owing to improvements in surgical technique, immunosuppressive agents, and early identification and treatment of postoperative complications.     

Application of reduced-size liver transplants as split grafts, auxiliary orthotopic grafts, and living related segmental transplants.

The University of Chicago program in pediatric liver transplantation continues actively to seek innovative surgical solutions to problems related to the management of children with end-stage liver disease. Among the most important problems facing these children is a shortage of donor organs, which results from three factors in addition to the actual supply of pediatric donors: the concentration of pediatric liver disease in the population younger than 2 years; the necessity for a graft that is small enough; and the epidemiology of accidents and other events that lead to organ donation. Transplantation using a liver lobe as a graft overcomes size disparity and shifts the available supply of organs from older donors to younger recipients. This work describes the technical aspects of recent innovations in the use of liver lobes in pediatric transplantation, simple reduced-size liver transplantation (RLT), split-liver transplantation (SLT), orthotopic auxiliary liver grafting (ALT), and transplantation using a living related donor (LRLT), and compares their results. Since November 1986 a total of 61 procedures have been performed in which a liver lobe was used as a graft: 26 RLT; 30 SLT, 25 in children and 5 in adults; 5 LRLT; and 1 ALT. Overall 62% of transplants performed in children have involved using a liver lobe as a graft. The rates of complications are somewhat higher than with whole-liver transplantation, but this may not be entirely the result of the complex procedures. Split liver transplantation is associated with the highest mortality and complication rates. Living related liver transplantation has been associated with complications in donors and recipients, but to date survival is 100%. Orthotopic auxiliary liver transplantation effectively corrected the metabolic defect in one patient with ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. Overall the various modalities of using graft reduction have resulted in postoperative results similar to those achieved with full-size grafts, while pretransplantation mortality has been limited to less than 2%. Thus the use of grafts as liver lobes accomplishes the goal of reducing global mortality among children with end-stage liver disease, but at the cost of increased surgical complexity and more postoperative complications.     

Characteristics of liver grafts in living-donor adult liver transplantation: comparison between right- and left-lobe grafts

HYPOTHESIS: Few studies have investigated the results of research focused on living-donor adult liver transplantation. Different characteristics between right- and left-lobe grafts have not yet been clarified in living-donor adult liver transplantation. Left-lobe graft remains an important option, even in adult recipients. SETTING: A single liver transplantation center with a long history of hepatic resection. PATIENTS: Forty-five donors received left-lobe (n = 39) and right-lobe (n = 6) grafts. The clinicopathological data for the donor, graft, and recipient were compared. All left-lobe grafts were extended grafts that included the middle hepatic vein, and 24 of the 39 left-lobe grafts included the left caudate lobe. No right-lobe graft included a middle hepatic vein. RESULTS: The postoperative aspartate aminotransferase and total bilirubin values of the donor in the right-lobe graft group were higher, and the postoperative hospital stay was longer than in the left-lobe graft group. Graft weight in the left-lobe graft group was lighter than in the right-lobe graft group (median weight, 450 vs 675 g). The median graft weight divided by the standard liver volume in the left-lobe graft group was 41% (range, 21%-66%), compared with 52% (range, 47%-75%) in the right-lobe graft group. We found no difference in terms of the incidence of postoperative complications between groups. No difference in induced complications of small-for-size grafts such as intractable ascites and persistent hyperbilirubinemia was evident between groups. The survival rate for grafts at 18 months was 75.0% in the right-lobe graft group compared with 85.6% in the left-lobe group. In the right-lobe graft group, we found a few cases in which a marked poor-perfusion area in the anterior segment caused liver dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Left-lobe grafts are a feasible option for living-donor adult liver transplantation, and in the case of right-lobe grafts, hepatic venous drainage is one of the most critical problems.     

Splitting the cadaveric liver into right and left lobes for two adult recipients

Objective: To identify the outcomes and risks of split-liver transplantation (SLT) for two adult recipients to determine the feasibility of more widespread use of this procedure to increase the graft pool for adults. Summary of Background: The shortage of cadaver liver grafts for adults is increasing. Using livers from donors defined as optimal, the authors have been developing techniques for SLT for two adult recipients at their center. Methods: From July 1993 to December 1999, 34 adults have undergone SLT with grafts from optimal donors prepared by ex situ split (n = 30) or in situ split (n = 4), and 88 adults received optimal whole-liver grafts that were not split. Four split-grafts were transplanted at other centers. The outcomes of transplantation with right and left split-liver grafts were compared with those of whole-liver transplants. The main end points were patient and graft survival at 1 and 2 years and the incidence and types of complications. Results: For whole-liver, right and left split-liver grafts, respectively, patient survival rates were 88%, 74%, and 88% at 1 year and 85%, 74%, and 64% at 2 years. Graft survival rates were 88%, 74%, and 75% at 1 year and 85%, 74%, and 43% at 2 years. Patient survival was adversely affected by graft steatosis and recipients inpatient status before transplantation. Graft survival was adversely affected by steatosis and a graft-to-recipient body weight ratio of less than 1%. Primary nonfunction occurred in three left split-liver grafts. The rates of arterial (6%) and biliary (22%) complications were similar to published data from conventional transplantation for an adult and a child. SLT for two adults increased the number of recipients by 62% compared with whole-liver transplantation and was logistically possible in 16 of the 104 (15%) optimal cadaver donors. Conclusions: Split-liver transplantation for two adults is technically feasible. Outcomes and complications rates can be improved by rigid selection criteria for donors and recipients, particularly for the smaller left graft, and possibly also by in situ splitting in cadaver donors. Wider use will require changes in the procedures for graft allocation and coordination between centers experienced in the techniques.     

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.     

Outcome of imported liver allografts and impact on patient access to liver transplantation

Liver allografts declined by local transplant centers are then offered regionally or nationally as imported grafts. Most of these grafts are declined because of poor donor quality. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent liver transplantation between January 2004 and December 2005. There were 102 liver transplants in 98 recipients. They were divided into two groups: imported graft recipients (n = 37) and locally procured grafts recipients (n = 61). Eighty-six percent (32 of 37) of imported grafts were obtained from extended criteria donors defined as subjects treated with high doses of ionotropes with elevated liver enzymes, donor age over 70 years, macrosteatosis above 25%, positive hepatitis C or hepatitis B core antibody serology, systemic disease, history of cancer, hypernatremia, or with infection. The remaining grafts were declined due to unavailability of suitable recipients or social history. Recipient age and etiology of liver disease were similar for both groups. The mean MELD score was 22.1 +/- .9 among the imported graft recipients and 26.1 +/- 1 for the locally procured graft recipients (P < .01). There was no difference in blood loss or postoperative complications. Postoperative mean peak total bilirubin was similar in both groups. However, imported graft recipients had significantly higher mean peak AST (2436 +/- 282 vs 1380 +/- 165 U/L, P < .001) and ALT (1098 +/- 114 vs 803 +/- 87 U/L, P < .05). Primary graft nonfunction as well as 30 day and 1-year patient and graft survivals were similar for both groups. In conclusion, imported grafts can be transplanted in selected patients with outcomes comparable to locally procured grafts.     

The outcome of liver grafts procured from hepatitis C-positive donors

BACKGROUND: The growing prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the general population has resulted in an increased frequency of potential organ donors that carry the virus. The survival of grafts from HCV+ donors has not been studied in detail. METHODS: Two study populations were examined retrospectively to assess the survival of liver grafts procured from HCV+ donors. First, we evaluated the survival of all 13 HCV+ and 103 HCV- grafts that were transplanted at our institution to HCV+ recipients from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1999. In parallel, we analyzed a subset of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) liver transplant database from the same 5-year time period that was comprised of 14,195 adult patients for whom donor and recipient HCV serologies were known. Kaplan-Meier graft survival for both patient populations was calculated based on donor and recipient HCV serologic status. A Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed on UNOS data to identify variables independently predicting graft survival. RESULTS: For transplants performed at our institution, we found no statistically significant difference in the Kaplan-Meier graft survival of HCV+ and HCV- grafts transplanted to HCV+ recipients (P=0.68). The incidence of biopsy-proven, recurrent HCV posttransplant was similar in recipients receiving either HCV+ or HCV- grafts (4/13 vs. 18/103, chi-square P=0.211). Analysis of UNOS data revealed that the survival of HCV+ grafts in HCV+ recipients was equivalent to the survival of HCV- grafts in HCV+ recipients. Unexpectedly, the survival of grafts in HCV+ recipients in general was significantly inferior to that of grafts in HCV- recipients. Multivariate analysis of all patients found recipient but not donor HCV status to be independently predictive of graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of data from a single center and the national UNOS database suggests that transplantation of liver allografts from HCV+ donors to HCV+ recipients results in graft survival comparable to HCV- grafts transplanted to HCV+ recipients. In contrast, recipient HCV positivity is an independent predictor of graft failure compared with patients transplanted for other causes of liver disease.     

Renal transplantation in children with emphasis on young patients

We report the results of 41 consecutive renal transplantations performed on 39 children (median age 2.7 years). Twenty-six recipients were less than 5 years old. Twenty-one recipients (13 under the age of 5 years) received cadaver (CAD) grafts. All grafts except 2 were from adult donors and were placed extraperitoneally. Patients were on triple immunosuppression (cyclosporine plus azathioprine plus methylprednisolone). Mean followup time was 2.3 years. No vascular and only one ureteral complication was seen. Acute tubular necrosis occurred in 3 patients (7.3%). No grafts were lost due to acute rejection. Three-year patient survival and 1-year graft survival were 100%. The overall 3-year actuarial graft survival was 86%. Three-year survival of grafts from living-related donors (LRD) was 92% and that of CAD grafts 75%. In recipients younger than 5 years, 3-year LRD graft survival was 89% and CAD graft survival 73%. No significant differences in graft survival between recipients of different age groups or between LRD and CAD grafts were found. We conclude that results of renal transplantation in children under 5 years of age are comparable to those of older children, even using CAD grafts, when adult donors and triple immunosuppression are used.     

Anaesthesia for living-donor liver transplantation

In Japan, living-donor liver transplantation has long been the only solution for end-stage liver disease. During the past 10 years, 526 cases of living-donor liver transplantation have been performed at Kyoto University Hospital. This report reviews the authors experience of anaesthesia. The most important issue is the safety of the donor. As the percentage of adult recipients has increased, so has the age of donors and because risk for the donor increases with age, careful preoperative evaluation of the donor by the anaesthetist is needed. The principal differences between living-donor liver transplantation and cadaveric donor liver transplantation are surgical technique (the former is always a partial liver transplantation) and viability of the graft (should always be better with a living donor). The major problems concerning the intraoperative management of recipients in living-donor liver transplantation are how to deal with massive blood loss and postreperfusion syndrome.     

Ten-year experience with cyclosporine as primary immunosuppression in recipients of renal allografts.

Cyclosporine has been used as primary immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients in our unit for the past decade. The overall clinical experience and long-term effects of the agent are reviewed. There were 461 consecutive recipients of kidney grafts; 379 received grafts from cadaver donors (CAD) and 82 from living related donors (LRD). Four separate clinical protocols were used sequentially using progressively decreasing doses of CyA; azathioprine was added in group 4 recipients of LRD grafts, and in patients receiving secondary CAD grafts (group 5). The patient mortality rate was less than 5%, with sepsis being the prime contributor. The majority of kidney grafts were lost within the first 2 months after operation; those that never functioned were found almost invariably to have been irreversibly rejected. During the subsequent years of follow-up, attrition of CAD grafts was significantly greater than LRD grafts. In contrast, the attrition rate of primary and secondary CAD grafts was the same after the first 3 months, emphasizing the importance of early immunologic graft destruction. Primary nonfunction occurred in 49% of CAD kidneys and 17% of LRD grafts; however 71% of initially nonfunctioning LRD grafts never functioned at all compared to 34% of CAD grafts, the majority of such organs undergoing fulminate rejection. Individual graft loss after 1 year was almost inevitably due to chronic rejection; there were no differences in long-term allograft function among the treatment groups. Although CyA has improved overall results of kidney transplantation, chronic rejection remains a major unresolved problem.     

Split-liver transplantation for two adult recipients: feasibility and long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVE: To identify the outcomes and risks of split-liver transplantation (SLT) for two adult recipients to determine the feasibility of more widespread use of this procedure to increase the graft pool for adults. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The shortage of cadaver liver grafts for adults is increasing. Using livers from donors defined as optimal, the authors have been developing techniques for SLT for two adult recipients at their center. METHODS: From July 1993 to December 1999, 34 adults have undergone SLT with grafts from optimal donors prepared by ex situ split (n = 30) or in situ split (n = 4), and 88 adults received optimal whole-liver grafts that were not split. Four split-grafts were transplanted at other centers. The outcomes of transplantation with right and left split-liver grafts were compared with those of whole-liver transplants. The main end points were patient and graft survival at 1 and 2 years and the incidence and types of complications. RESULTS: For whole-liver, right and left split-liver grafts, respectively, patient survival rates were 88%, 74%, and 88% at 1 year and 85%, 74%, and 64% at 2 years. Graft survival rates were 88%, 74%, and 75% at 1 year and 85%, 74%, and 43% at 2 years. Patient survival was adversely affected by graft steatosis and recipients inpatient status before transplantation. Graft survival was adversely affected by steatosis and a graft-to-recipient body weight ratio of less than 1%. Primary nonfunction occurred in three left split-liver grafts. The rates of arterial (6%) and biliary (22%) complications were similar to published data from conventional transplantation for an adult and a child. SLT for two adults increased the number of recipients by 62% compared with whole-liver transplantation and was logistically possible in 16 of the 104 (15%) optimal cadaver donors. CONCLUSIONS: Split-liver transplantation for two adults is technically feasible. Outcomes and complication rates can be improved by rigid selection criteria for donors and recipients, particularly for the smaller left graft, and possibly also by in situ splitting in cadaver donors. Wider use will require changes in the procedures for graft allocation and coordination between centers experienced in the techniques.     

Split-liver transplantation in the United States: outcomes of a national survey

OBJECTIVE: Assess application and outcomes of split-liver transplantation within the United States. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: While a theoretically attractive mechanism to increase cadaver organ supply, split-liver transplantation has been infrequently applied. The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, in an attempt to gather preliminary data on split-liver transplantation, performed a data protected survey of transplant centers participating in the U.S. Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients. METHODS: Between April 2000 and May 2001, 89 surgical teams were surveyed. Elicited data included graft type, recipient status, procurement method, graft sharing, graft outcomes, recipient outcomes, and experience with cadaver, whole-organ transplantation. RESULTS: Eighty-three surgical teams reported data on 207 left lateral segment, 152 right trisegment, 15 left lobe, and 13 right lobe grafts. The split procedure was performed ex vivo in 54% and in situ in 46% of grafts. Complications were frequent in all graft types with biliary and vascular complications equally distributed between grafts procured by either technique. Primary nonfunction, graft failure, and recipient death correlated with transplant status. CONCLUSIONS: Split-liver transplantation has been principally applied to adult-child pairs with at least one recipient critically ill. Biliary and vascular complications account for the majority of morbidity in grafts procured by either split technique with graft failure and recipient death observed more frequently in critically ill recipients. Enhanced utilization and improved results may be possible through improved information sharing and modification of allocation criteria.     

感染肝吸虫的肝脏作为移植供肝的可行性(附14例报告)

目的 探讨感染肝吸虫的肝脏作为移植供肝的可行性.方法 14例肝功能衰竭患者接受感染肝吸虫的供肝移植.均为尸体供肝,供者生前均未诊断肝吸虫病,肝功能正常.供肝均采用快速切取技术获取,用UW液灌洗、保存,供肝热缺血时间为(4.0±2.1)min,冷缺血时间为(582±167)min.肝脏保存之后在供肝胆管中发现肝吸虫成虫,由此确定供肝感染肝吸虫.14例患者均接受经典原位肝移植术,常规留置T管.术后2～4d开始给予吡喹酮,每天3次,每次25mg/kg,2d 为一个疗程.采用他克莫司、霉酚酸酯和肾上腺皮质激素联用预防排斥反应.观察患者生存状况、早期肝功能恢复情况以及胆管并发症发生率.术后第7天和3个月留取胆汁,涂片找肝吸虫虫卵.结果 移植前1例供肝存在小叶间胆管轻度增生,1例为轻度大泡性脂肪肝(5%),其余供肝组织均正常.术后随访时间中位数为31个月,移植物1年和3年存活率分别为85.7%和78.6%.所有患者术后早期肝功能均迅速改善,无移植物原发无功能或功能恢复延迟出现.术后发生胆管并发症2例(14.3%,2/14),1例为肝内胆管狭窄(术后3个月),另1例为胆总管结石(术后2年).术后全部患者的胆汁中均未发现肝吸虫虫卵.结论 感染肝吸虫的肝脏可以作为移植供肝,但此类供肝的选择标准尚待探讨.     

Results of 60 consecutive hepatectomies for pediatric living donor liver transplantation

Several technical improvements have been made to increase donor pool for pediatric liver transplantation, including reduced-size grafts, split-liver, and recently living donors. The objective of the present study is to report our single-center experience with 60 hepatectomies for living donor liver transplantation in pediatric recipients between June 2000 and December 2002. Donor workup consisted of a complete history and physical examination followed by laboratory test and liver function tests. Graft size was estimated using computed tomography scan or abdominal ultrasound. Liver biopsy was performed in all donors. Arteriogram was performed to evaluate hepatic arterial anatomy. All donors survived the procedure. Only seven patients experienced complications (10.2%), most of which were short term. We conclude that liver living donation for pediatric population is a safe procedure.     

Split-liver transplantation eliminates the need for living-donor liver transplantation in children with end-stage cholestatic liver disease

BACKGROUND: End-stage cholestatic liver disease (ESCLD) is the main indication for liver replacement in children. Pediatric cadaver-organ-donor shortage has prompted the most important evolutions in the technique of liver transplantation, in particular living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and split-liver transplantation (SLT). METHODS: Between November 1997 and June 2001, 127 children with ESCLD were evaluated for liver transplantation, and 124 underwent 138 liver transplantations after a median time of 40 days. Causes of liver disease were congenital biliary atresia (n=96), Alagille's syndrome (n=12), Byler's disease (n=8), and other cholestatic diseases (n=8). RESULTS: Ninety (73%) patients received a split-liver graft, 28 (23%) a whole liver, and 6 (4%) a reduced-size liver. Overall 2- and 4-year patient survival rates were 93% and 91%, respectively; the 2- and 4-year graft-survival rates were 84% and 80%, respectively. In split-liver recipients, 4-year patient and graft-survival rates were 91% and 83%, respectively; these were 93% and 78%, respectively, in whole-liver recipients and 67% and 63%, respectively, in reduced-size liver recipients. Retransplantation rate was 11%, whereas mortality rate was 8%. Overall incidence of vascular and biliary complication were 16% and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SLT can provide liver grafts for children with ESCLD with an outcome similar to the one reported following LDLT, eliminating mortality while they are on a transplantation wait list. The need for pediatric LDLT should be reevaluated and programs of SLT strongly encouraged and supported at a national and international level.     

Biochemical assessment of the early liver graft function in relation to selected donor parameters

The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of liver grafts procured from "marginal donors." Among 62 liver transplants in 2002, almost half were harvested from donors who were not deemed acceptable by other transplant units. The authors compared the data concerning the donor's status with the function of the transplanted liver. The relations between individual parameters were estimated, as well as the differences between two groups of recipients: those who received a graft from the "poorer" donors versus those who received "better" grafts. Regardless of the relations between particular parameters a statistical analysis revealed that differences of liver function that were detected during the first 5 days after transplantation disappeared thereafter.     

Technique of organ removal and fate of kidney grafts from liver donors.

The fate of 42 kidney grafts taken from heart-beating, ventilated donors at the same time as removal of the liver for allografting is reported, and is compared with 50 kidney grafts taken from heart-beating, ventilated donors whose ventilators were electively switched off either during or immediately before kidney removal. The fate of 32 kidney grafts taken from donors classified as "dead on arrival" at the admitting hospital is also reported. Onset of life-supporting graft function was significantly earlier among kidneys from the "liver donor" group. Consequently, immediate postoperative dialysis requirements were significantly less in recipients of this group of kidneys. Early graft survival, the incidence of graft primary nonfunction, failure of first and second kidney grafts, and recipient survival were not significantly different when comparing liver donor and "ventilator switch off" kidneys. No constant relationship was apparent in any donor group between graft fate and the anoxic and ischaemic times the graft was exposed to during organ removal and reimplantation.     

Transmission of an undiagnosed sarcoma to recipients of kidney and liver grafts procured in a non-heart beating donor.

Transmission of an undiagnosed cancer with solid organ transplantation is a rare but dreadful event. In this paper the authors report the transmission of an undiagnosed sarcoma to recipients of kidney and liver grafts procured in a Maastricht category 3 non-heart beating donor. To the authors' knowledge this case is the first report of such a transmission with a liver graft procured in a non-heart beating donor. The cancer transferal was diagnosed 1 year after transplantation in the recipients of the liver and of one kidney. The liver recipient died from multiple organ failure after a failed attempt of tumor resection. The kidney recipient underwent immunosuppression withdrawal and transplantectomy. Non-heart beating donors should not be particularly at risk for undiagnosed cancer transmission if the procurement is performed according to the same rules of careful inspection of the abdominal and thoracic organs. After diagnosis of donor cancer transmission, kidney recipients should have the graft removed, and immunosuppression should be interrupted. The management of liver graft recipients is very difficult in this setting, and long-term survival was very rarely reported.