Liver transplantation from maastricht category 2 non-heart-beating donors: a source to increase the donor pool?

INTRODUCTION: The demand for liver transplantation has increasingly exceeded the supply of cadaver donor organs. Non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs) may be an alternative to increase the cadaver donor pool. The outcome of 20 liver transplants from Maastricht category 2 NHBD was compared with that of 40 liver transplants from heart-beating donors (HBDs). After unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), cardiopulmonary support with simultaneous application of chest and abdominal compression (CPS; n = 6) or cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB; n = 14) was used to maintain the donors. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, actuarial patient and graft survival rates with livers from Maastricht category 2 NHBD were 80% and 55%, respectively. Transplantation of organs from these donors was associated with a significantly higher incidence of primary nonfunction, biliary complications, and more severe initial liver dysfunction compared with organs from HBDs. The graft survival rates was 83% for livers from NHBDs preserved with CPS and 42% in those maintained with CPB.     

Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation: do the benefits extend to all recipients?

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplantation (prior to the institution of dialysis) avoids the morbidity and mortality of dialysis; however, detailed studies of high-risk patients are lacking. The aim of the current study was to compare recent outcomes of preemptive (P) versus nonpreemptive (NP) living donor kidney transplantation with an emphasis on high-risk recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 438 sequential solitary living donor kidney transplants at our institution between January 2000 and December 2002. In all, 44% were preemptive. NP recipients were dialyzed for 21+/-36 months (range 1-312 months). RESULTS: Overall, three-year patient survival was similar in the NP and P groups. When stratified by diabetes and age >65 years, P and NP recipients again showed similar survival. Death-censored three-year graft survival was better in the P group (97% vs. 90%, P=0.01), but was not significant by multivariate analysis. Delayed graft function was more frequent in NP vs. P (10% vs. 4%; P=0.01), but other early complications were similar including: acute rejection, 16% vs. 11% (P=0.11); primary nonfunction, 3% vs. 2% (P=0.38); and wound complications, 19% vs. 17% (P=0.54). Glomerular filtration rate at three years was similar in the two groups (53+/-23 preemptive vs. 52+/-20 ml/min nonpreemptive; P=0.37). CONCLUSION: With prompt referral and workup, preemptive kidney transplantation can be performed successfully in a large percentage of renal allograft recipients. Preemptive transplantation avoids unnecessary dialysis and should be emphasized as initial therapy for many patients with end-stage renal disease.     

Kidney transplantation in hepatitis C-positive recipients: does type of induction influence outcomes?

Background

Kidney transplantation in hepatitis C virus-seropositive (HCV+) recipients improves survival compared to staying on the waiting list. A concern for using depleting (versus nondepleting) induction agent during kidney transplantation in HCV+ recipients is the possibility that the associated enhanced immunosuppression might favor the progression of hepatitis C infection, leading to adverse outcomes.

Methods

Utilizing data from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network, we identified HCV+ patients ≥ 18 years of age who underwent deceased donor kidney (DDK) transplants from either HCV+ or HCV− donors between 1998 and 2008. Patients were divided into two groups based on the induction type they received during the transplant: depleting agent (rabbit-antithymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab) or nondepleting agent (basiliximab or daclizumab) groups. Unadjusted and adjusted graft and patient survivals (Cox regression) between the groups were compared.

Results

A total of 3490 HCV+ DDK recipients were identified (1859 in the depleting and 1631 in the nondepleting groups). When compared to nondepleting agent, adjusted graft (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.28, P = .16) and patient (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93-1.42, P = .2) survivals were similar with depleting agent induction. HCV donor seropositivity did not adversely impact either graft (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96-1.29, P = .17) or patient (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93-1.42, P = .2) outcomes.

Conclusions

Our analysis supports the practice of transplanting HCV+ donor kidneys into HCV+ recipients to alleviate waiting list burden. Recipient HCV positivity should not influence selection of induction agent.     

Is it safe to use a liver graft from a Chagas disease-seropositive donor in a human immunodeficiency virus-positive recipient? A case report addressing a novel challenge in liver transplantation

This is the first report presenting a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patient with fulminant hepatic failure receiving a liver graft from a Chagas disease-seropositive deceased donor. We describe the history of a 38-year-old HIV-positive female patient who developed fulminant hepatic failure of an autoimmune etiology with rapid deterioration of her clinical status and secondary multiorgan failure and, therefore, needed emergency liver transplantation (LT) as a lifesaving procedure. Because of the scarcity of organs and the high mortality rate for emergency status patients on the LT waiting list, we decided to accept a Chagas disease-seropositive deceased donor liver graft for this immunocompromised Chagas disease-seronegative patient. The recipient had a rapid postoperative recovery and was discharged on postoperative day 9 without prophylactic treatment for Chagas disease. Fifteen months after LT, she was still alive and had never experienced seroconversion on periodic screening tests for Chagas detection. Although there is an inherent risk of acute Chagas disease developing in seronegative recipients, our report suggests that these infected organs can be safely used as a lifesaving strategy for HIV patients with a high need for LT.     

Transplantation of kidneys from HCV-positive donors: a safe strategy?

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection is the most important cause of liver disease after renal transplantation (RT). The impact of HCV on patient and graft survival after RT remains controversial; however, the great majority of studies with large size and adequate follow-up have shown the detrimental impact of HCV on long-term patient and graft survival after RT. The use of kidneys from anti-HCV positive donors could help decrease the continuing disparity between the number of patients on the transplant waiting list and the number of patients receiving a transplant each year. Single-center experiences have suggested transplanting kidneys from anti-HCV positive donors only in anti-HCV positive dialysis patients. Such practice has not demonstrated any adverse effect on the short-term patient survival; the waiting times for RT were shortened. A better alternative seems to be a policy of transplanting kidneys from anti-HCV positive donors only in HCV RNA positive recipients. This requires HCV RNA testing of all anti-HCV positive dialysis patients awaiting RT. Matching donors and recipients for HCV genotype has been suggested; however, the assessment of donor HCV genotype is currently hampered by time constraints. Recent evidence based on large data base demonstrated that RT recipients of HCV-positive donors are at independent increased risk of mortality; unadjusted 3-year patient survival was 85% versus 93% (P=0.01) in all recipients of donor HCV-positive and HCV-negative kidneys, respectively. This was observed in all recipient subgroups including elderly and HCV-positive recipients. In the near future, rapid nucleic acid testing (NAT) of donors and recipients will allow the assessment of the HCV viremic status in order to maximize organ use. With appropriate informed consent, use of a renal graft from an HCV positive donor may be offered to an HCV infected recipient. Additional studies are needed to clarify the link between donor HCV-positive kidneys and patient mortality.     

Reducing the shortage of donor livers: what would It take to reliably split livers for transplantation into two adult recipients?

This article examines the scientific, technical, and administrative barriers to splitting donor livers for use in two adults. The main scientific barrier is that cadaveric donor livers at their current level of postoperative function are not sufficiently large to support life in two adult recipients. However, glycogenation of livers from young donors may be a method to overcome this problem in the short term. The three technical obstacles to splitting the liver in the midplane are anatomic anomalies that complicate or prevent splitting, the means to detect these anomalies, and the surgical methods to accomplish the split. Anatomic anomalies affecting the biliary drainage and arterial supply of the liver are the most important limiting technical factors. Administrative accommodations in the current methods of organ allocation will be needed if split-liver transplantation in adults is to succeed. A nationwide view of organ allocation requires that the total number of lives saved by the procedure be the priority outcome nationally. If liver transplantation is viewed from this perspective, split-liver transplantation for adults would be a high priority, and incentives should be set to encourage it.     

Is it safe to use a kidney from an expanded criteria donor?

Background

The use of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys has been encouraged to enlarge the donor pools due to the shortage of donors. However, a major concern with ECD kidneys is poor long-term graft survival. The objective of this study was to determine whether ECD kidneys had a negative impact on graft survival.

Methods

We analyzed all deceased donor renal transplantations at our center from September 1995 to December 2009.

Results

ECD donors show characteristics, such as comparatively older age, a history of hypertension and diabetes, the use of norepinephrine, high serum creatinine levels and deceased donor scores, and decreased albumin levels and estimated glomerular filtration rates. However, the occurrence of delayed graft function and primary nonfunction among ECD grafts was comparable to those of standard criteria donor (SCD) grafts. Graft survival was not significantly different between the two groups. Only serum creatinine levels at 3, 6, and 9 months after transplantation were lower in the ECD than the SCD group. Multivariate analysis identified longer hospital stay after transplantation, delayed graft function, and acute rejection episodes as independent predictors of poor graft survival.

Conclusion

Graft survival of ECD kidney was comparable to that of SCD kidneys. We observed that donor factors prior to procurement were not risk factors for graft failure.     

How can we utilize livers from advanced aged donors for liver transplantation for hepatitis C?

Advanced age donors have inferior outcomes of liver transplantation for Hepatitis C (HCV). Aged donors grafts may be transplanted into young or low model for end stage liver disease (MELD) patients in order to offset the effect of donor age. However, it is not well understood how to utilize liver grafts from advanced aged donors for HCV patients. Using the UNOS database, we retrospectively studied 7508 HCV patients who underwent primary liver transplantation. Risk factors for graft failure and graft survival using advanced aged grafts (donor age ≥ 60 years) were analyzed by Cox hazards models, donor risk index (DRI) and organ patient index (OPI). Recipient's age did not affect on graft survival regardless of donor age. Advanced aged grafts had significant inferior survival compared to younger aged grafts regardless of MELD score (P < 0.0001). Risk factors of HCV patients receiving advanced aged grafts included donation after cardiac death (DCD, HR: 1.69) and recent hospitalization (HR: 1.43). Advanced aged grafts showed significant difference in graft survival of HCV patients with stratification of DRI and OPI. In conclusion, there was no offsetting effect by use of advanced aged grafts into younger or low MELD patients. Advanced aged grafts, especially DCD, should be judiciously used for HCV patients with low MELD score.     

Subnormothermic machine perfusion for non-heart-beating donor liver grafts preservation in a Swine model: a new strategy to increase the donor pool?

We previously reported that subnormothermic machine perfusion (sMP; 20°C) is able to improve the preservation of livers obtained from non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs) in rats. We have compared sMP and standard cold storage (CS) to preserve pig livers after 60 minutes of cardiac arrest. In the sMP group livers were perfused for 6 hours with Celsior at 20°C. In the CS group they were stored in Celsior at 4°C for 6 hours as usual. To simulate liver transplantation, both sMP- and CS-preserved livers were reperfused using a mechanical continuous perfusion system with autologus blood for 2 hours at 37°C. At 120 min after reperfusion aspartate aminotransferase levels in sMP versus CS were 499 ± 198 versus 7648 ± 2806 U/L (P < .01); lactate dehydrogenase 1685 ± 418 versus 12998 ± 3039 U/L (P < .01); and lactic acid 4.78 ± 3.02 versus 10.46 ± 1.79 mmol/L (P < .01) respectively. The sMP group showed better histopathologic results with significantly less hepatic damage. This study confirmed that sMP was able to resuscitate liver grafts from large NHBD animals.