Improved graft survival of pediatric liver recipients transplanted with pediatric-aged liver donors

BACKGROUND: Improving graft survival after liver transplantation is an important goal for the transplant community, particularly given the increasing donor shortage. We have examined graft survivals of livers procured from pediatric donors compared to adult donors. METHODS: The effect of donor age (<18 years or > or =18 years) on graft survivals for both pediatric and adult liver recipients was analyzed using data reported to the UNOS Scientific Registry from January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1997. Graft survival, stratified by age, status at listing, and type of transplant was computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, odds ratios of graft failure at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years posttransplant were calculated using a multivariate logistic regression analysis controlling for several donor and recipient factors. Modeling, using the UNOS Liver Allocation Model investigated the impact of a proposed policy giving pediatric patients preference to pediatric donors. RESULTS: Between 1992 and 1997 pediatric recipients received 35.6% of pediatric aged donor livers. In 1998 the percent of children dying on the list was 7.4%, compared with 7.3% of adults. Kaplan-Meier graft survivals showed that pediatric patients receiving livers from pediatric aged donors had an 81% 3-year graft survival compared with 63% if children received livers from donors > or =18 years (P<0.001). In contrast, adult recipients had similar 3-year graft survivals irrespective of donor age. In the multivariate analysis, the odds of graft failure were reduced to 0.66 if pediatric recipients received livers from pediatric aged donors (P<0.01). The odds of graft failure were not affected at any time point for adults whether they received an adult or pediatric- aged donor. The modeling results showed that the number of pediatric patients trans planted increased by at most 59 transplants per year. This had no significant effect on the probability of pretransplant death for adults on the waiting list. Waiting time for children at status 2B was reduced by as much as 160 days whereas adult waiting time at status 2B was increased by at most 20 days. CONCLUSION: A policy that would direct some livers procured from pediatric- aged donors to children improves the graft survival of children after liver transplantation. The effect of this policy does not increase mortality of adults waiting. Such a policy should increase the practice of split liver transplantation, which remains an important method to increase the cadaveric donor supply.     

Outcomes in hepatitis C virus-infected recipients of living donor vs. deceased donor liver transplantation.

In this retrospective study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected transplant recipients in the 9-center Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study, graft and patient survival and the development of advanced fibrosis were compared among 181 living donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients and 94 deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients. Overall 3-year graft and patient survival were 68% and 74% in LDLT, and 80% and 82% in DDLT, respectively. Graft survival, but not patient survival, was significantly lower for LDLT compared to DDLT (P = 0.04 and P = 0.20, respectively). Further analyses demonstrated lower graft and patient survival among the first 20 LDLT cases at each center (LDLT 20; P = 0.002 and P = 0.002, respectively) and DDLT recipients (P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). Graft and patient survival in LDLT >20 and DDLT were not significantly different (P = 0.66 and P = 0.74, respectively). Overall, 3-year graft survival for DDLT, LDLT >20, and LDLT 20 were not significantly different. Important predictors of graft loss in HCV-infected patients were limited LDLT experience, pretransplant HCC, and higher MELD at transplantation.     

Patient and graft outcomes from deceased kidney donors age 70 years and older: an analysis of the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing database

BACKGROUND: The organ shortage has resulted in more use of older deceased donor kidneys. Data are limited on the impact of donor aged 70 years and older on transplant outcomes. We examined patient and graft outcomes of renal transplant from expanded criteria donors (ECDs) aged 70 years and older, using the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing database. METHODS: We identified 601 deceased donor transplants from donors older than 70 years from 2000 to 2005. The follow-up time was until May 2007. Allograft and patient survival were compared between recipients of transplants from older ECDs (age > or =70) and younger ECDs (age 50-69). The relative risk of graft loss and patient death were determined using multivariate models. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risks of overall graft loss (hazards ratio [HR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.58), death-censored graft loss (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.61), and patient death (HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.15-1.64) were greater among recipients of transplants from older ECD kidneys. The relative risk of patient death was lower when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients older than 60 compared with recipients aged 41 to 60. In contrast, the relative risk of death-censored graft loss was not increased when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients older than 60. CONCLUSIONS: Transplants from older ECD kidneys are associated with a higher risk of graft loss and patient death. The risk was highest when older ECD kidneys were transplanted into recipients younger than 60 years.     

Liver Transplantation in Sexagenarian Patients Using Grafts From Uncontrolled Circulatory Death Versus Grafts From Brain Death Donation

BackgroundAn increased number of older recipients underwent liver transplantation in recent years, and consequently needing to obtain more liver grafts. In order to increase this pool, in 2006, we initiated the use of livers from uncontrolled circulatory death (uDCD). We analyzed the use of uDCD livers in sexagenarian recipients and their effect on overall survival.MethodsA retrospective and comparative study was performed among 4 groups according to recipient age (less or greater than 60 years) and donor type (donor brain death [DBD] or uDCD): Group A: DBD livers in recipients aged <60 years (n = 169); Group B: uDCD livers in recipients aged <60 years (n = 36); Group C: DBD livers in recipients aged >60 years (n = 96); and Group D: uDCD livers in recipients aged >60 years(n = 39).ResultsIntraoperative transfusion, biliary complications, primary non-function, acute rejection, chronic renal dysfunction, retransplantation, and mortality during follow-up (cardiovascular diseases in 3 patients, hepatitis C virus recurrence in 4 patients, and de novo malignancies in 3 patients) were significantly higher, and 5-year patient and graft survival was significantly lower in sexagenarian recipients.Bilirubin and packed red blood cells transfusion were risk factors for patient survival, whereas hepatocelular carcinoma, creatinine, and packed red blood cells transfusion were risk factors for patient survival. Recipient age (<60 years) was confirmed as protective factor for patient and graft survival, whereas the use of uDCD was not a risk factor for patient or graft survival.ConclusionsUse of a uDCD liver did not demonstrate as a risk factor for patient and graft survival, and recipient age (<60 years) was a protective factor for patient and graft survival.     

Expanded criteria donors: process and outcomes

Expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys are transplantable deceased donor (DD) kidneys for which the average patient, graft survival, and renal function are inferior when compared to standard criteria DD kidneys. Although the term ECD kidneys has been used since the early 1990s to describe kidneys with various characteristics associated with poorer outcomes, the concept has been formally implemented in U.S. organ allocation. A DD kidney is considered to be an ECD organ if the estimated adjusted risk of graft failure is > or = 70% (RR > or = 1.70) compared to DD kidneys with standard characteristics of transplant suitability. The donor characteristics that define an ECD kidney include age > or = 60 years, or age 50-59 years plus two of the following: cerebrovascular accident as the cause of death, preexisting hypertension, or terminal serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dl. In the aggregate, recipients of ECD kidneys have improved survival compared to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on the kidney transplant waiting list. Patient survival is 5% lower at 1 year and 8-12% lower at 3-5 years for ECD kidney recipients. Adjusted graft survival in ECD kidneys is 8% lower at 1 year and 15-20% lower at 3-5 years after transplantation compared to standard criteria donor kidneys. However, patients less than 40 years of age, African Americans, Asians for whom the median waiting time is less than 1350 days receive no survival benefit from ECD kidney transplantation. Informed choice by the potential recipient is a prominent feature of the allocation policy regarding ECD kidneys. Since there are recipient characteristics associated with no survival benefit following ECD transplantation, nephrologists who refer patients for kidney transplantation should be familiar with the combination of donor and recipient factors that are likely to yield detrimental results.     

Liver transplantation from old donors into HCV and non-HCV recipients

BACKGROUND: Chronic liver failure due to HCV-related cirrhosis is the leading indication for liver transplantation in Western countries. Inferior long-term results have been reported for liver transplantation in HCV patients, especially when marginal donor livers are utilized. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the outcome of liver transplantation from elderly donors in HCV versus non-HCV recipients. METHODS: One hundred seventy-nine patients receiving 204 liver transplantations were divided into four groups according to HCV positivity and donor age (> or <65 years). Long-term survivals were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Grafts from donors of >65 years into HCV-positive patients displayed lower patient and graft survival rates than HCV-negative cases, although macrosteatosis was more frequent (55% vs 9%, P =.02) among organs used for non-HCV cases. Moreover, HCV-positive recipients transplanted with a donor aged >65 years had significantly lower patient and graft survival (40% vs 78% [P =.01] and 40% vs 68% [P =.06], respectively) than patients receiving a liver from a younger donor. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective analysis, although hampered by a small number of patients transplanted with an old liver, suggest that the results of liver transplantation with a donor graft >65 years of age into an HCV-positive recipient shows a worse outcome than those from younger donors. Older livers should be reserved for non-HCV cases.     

Expanded criteria donor kidneys for younger recipients: acceptable outcomes

Introduction

European senior programme (ESP) is well known for acceptable outcomes using expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from donors older than 65 years for recipients older than 65 years. The incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is 229/million in India with a mean age of 45 years. We performed a retrospective analysis of transplantation of ECD versus standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys into younger recipients.

Methods

Forty-three ECD transplantations among 158 deceased donor organ transplantation (DDOT) were performed between January 2006 and December 2009. Among 43 transplantation from 30 donors, 14 were dual kidney transplantations (DKT) performed based upon biopsy evaluation. All recipients received thymoglobulin (rATG) induction followed by immunosuppression with a steroid, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and a calcineurin inhibitor. Statistical analysis used chi-square test and unpaired Student t test. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for survival analysis.

Results

For ECD the mean donor age was 64 ± 11 years. Cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) were the cause of death among 60% of donors, 73.13% of whom were hypertensive and 23.13% diabetic.Mean DKT donor age was 75 ± 9.17 years versus 60 ± 8.0 years for single kidney transplantation (SKT). Mean recipient age of DKT versus SKT was 44 ± 12.4 years versus 43 ± 14 years. Mean serum creatinine (SCr; mg/dL) of SKT patients was 1.64 ± 0.75 versus 1.68 ± 0.46 in DKT. Mean follow-up was 455 ± 352 days. Mean SCr of 43 ECD recipients of mean age, 43.4 ± 14.2 years was 1.61 ± 0.61 mg/dL. Among 43 recipients, 23.25% were diabetic, 41.86% displayed delayed graft function (DGF), and 23.25% experienced biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR). Patient survival rate was 72.09% and graft survival rate was 67.44%. For SCD transplantations (n = 115), the mean donor age was 36 ± 14 years and recipient mean age was 32.8 ± 14.07 years. Mean SCr was 1.32 ± 0.46 mg/dL with 26.95% recipients displaying DGF, whereas 20.86% had BPAR. In the SCD group the patient survival rate was 79.13% and the graft survival rate was 72.17%. Thus, although the ECD group showed poor graft function (P = .042), they had acceptable patient and graft survivals (P = .34 and P = .56, respectively).

Conclusion

Because of the organ shortage, DDOT using ECD transplants for younger recipients is a feasible option with acceptable outcomes.     

Optimal use of older donors and recipients in kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: The aging donor and recipient population have led to new challenges in kidney transplantation. The purpose of this study was to review retrospectively our single center experience in deceased-donor kidney transplantation, with respect to donor and recipient age. METHODS: From October 1, 2001, through February 20, 2004, we performed 144 deceased-donor kidney transplantations, which included 37 procedures (26%) in recipients > or =60 years old and 107 procedures (74%) in recipients 19 to 59 years old. The deceased-donor pool included 57 expanded criteria donors (ECD) and 87 standard criteria donors (defined as not ECD). ECD kidneys were used by matching estimated renal functional mass to recipient size (body mass index, <25 kg/m(2)), which included the use of dual kidney transplantations (n = 9). ECD kidney recipients were further selected on the basis of age >40 years and low immunologic risk. Recipients received rabbit antithymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab induction in combination with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids. RESULTS: The mean age differed between recipient groups (65 vs 46 years; P < .001). In recipients > or =60 years old, 23 recipients (62%) received kidney transplants from ECDs compared with 34 kidney transplants from ECDs (32%; P < .001) in recipients who were <60 years old. Patient survival was 89% in recipients who were > or =60 years old, compared with 95% in recipients who were <60 years old (P = .11), with a mean follow-up time of 27 months. Kidney graft survival rates were 84% in both recipient groups. Initial and subsequent graft function, rejection, infection, reoperation, length of stay, readmission, and resource use were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: By the matching of nephron mass with recipient size and avoiding the use of ECD kidneys in recipients with a high immunologic risk, short-term outcomes that are comparable with standard criteria donor kidneys in younger patients can be achieved with either older donors or recipients, regardless of age.     

A Lifetime of Allograft Function with Kidneys from Older Donors

Strategies to increase expanded criteria donor (ECD) transplantation are needed. We quantified the extent to which ECD kidneys provide recipients with a lifetime of allograft function by determining the difference between patient survival and death-censored allograft survival (graft survival). Initial analyses compared 5-year outcomes in the Eurotransplant Senior Program (European) and the United States Renal Data System. Among European recipients ≥65 years, patient survival exceeded graft survival, and ECD recipients returned to dialysis for an average of 5.2 months after transplant failure. Among United States recipients ≥60 years, graft survival exceeded patient survival. Although patient survival in elderly recipients in the United States was low (49% at 5 years), the average difference in patient survival at 10 years in elderly recipients in the United States with an ECD versus non-ECD transplant was only 7 months. The probability of patient survival with a functioning allograft at 5 years was higher with ECD transplantation within 1 year after activation to the waiting list than with delayed non-ECD transplantation ≥3 years after activation to the waiting list. Subsequent analyses demonstrated that ECD transplants do not provide a lifetime of allograft function in recipients <50 years in the United States. These findings should encourage ECD transplantation in patients ≥60 years, demonstrate that rapid ECD transplantation is superior to delayed non-ECD transplantation, and challenge the policy in the United States of allowing patients <50 years to receive an ECD transplant.     

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.     

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.     

The use of older donor livers for hepatic transplantation

The function and outcome of liver grafts from "older" donors (more than 50 years old) were compared with grafts from younger donors (less than 50 years old). Of 184 consecutive liver transplants, 23 grafts were from older donors (50.2-65.3 years, mean 54.3 years). The liver preservation period was short, averaging less than 4 hr with the maximum under 8 hr for the older grafts. The majority of livers were preserved with Collins' solution. All transplants were performed using consistent methods that had proved to be successful over time. The medical status of the patients who received the older and younger grafts was similar but a higher percentage of older grafts were transplanted into ABO blood group--incompatible recipients. Graft function--as determined by peak aminotransferase levels, duration of prolonged prothrombin time, retransplantation rate within 30 days and incidence of primary nonfunction--was not significantly different in older versus younger grafts. Actual 30-day graft survival was 86.9% in the older grafts and 85.1% in the younger grafts. Actuarial 1-year graft and patient survival rates were 65.0% and 71.4%, respectively, in recipients of older grafts and 68.8% and 75.6%, respectively, in recipients of younger grafts. It is concluded that donor livers older than 50 years can be transplanted with the same success as younger livers provided that other generally accepted donor criteria are satisfied and the preservation period is short. The upper age limit for liver donation is not yet known.     

Outcome of the use of pediatric donor livers in adult recipients

The prolonged waiting time caused by the lack of donor livers leads to an increasing number of terminally ill patients waiting for lifesaving liver transplantation. To rescue these patients, transplant programs are accepting donor organs from the expanded donor pool, using donors of increasingly older age, as well as from the pediatric age group, often despite significant mismatch in liver size. We investigated the outcome of 102 consecutive liver transplantations using pediatric donor livers in adult recipients. One-year graft survival using donors aged 12 years or younger (group 1, n = 14) and donors aged 12 to 18 years (group 2, n = 88) was compared. In addition, risk factors for graft loss and vascular complications were analyzed. The 1-year graft survival rate in adult transplant recipients in group 1 was 64.3% compared with 87.5% in those in group 2 (P = .015). The main cause of graft loss was arterial complications, occurring in 5 of 16 transplant recipients (31.3%). Major risk factors for graft loss and vascular complications were related to the size of the donor: age, height and weight, body surface area of donor and recipient, and warm ischemic time. We conclude that the outcome of small pediatric donor livers in adult recipients is poor, mainly because of the increased incidence of arterial complications. When a pediatric donor is used in an adult recipient, ischemic time should be kept to a minimum and anticoagulative therapy should be administered in the immediate postoperative period to avoid arterial complications. However, because small pediatric donors are the only source of lifesaving organs for the infant recipient, the use of small pediatric donor livers in adults should be avoided. (Liver transpl 2001;7:38-40.)     

肝脏再移植原因及效果分析

目的探讨再次肝移植的原因及效果,并比较不同供肝来源与再移植的关系。 方法回顾性分析2000年1月至2018年5月四川大学华西医院1 429例肝移植受者临床资料。首次肝移植供肝来源分别为尸体供肝686例、心脏死亡器官捐献(DCD)供肝346例和活体供肝397例。其中31例受者接受再次肝移植(32例次,其中1例受者接受2次再移植),再移植率为2.24%(32/1 429),供肝来源分别为尸体供肝23例、DCD供肝6例、活体供3例。再移植间隔时间中位数为311 d(88～845 d),间隔1～7 d 3例,8～30 d 1例,31～365 d 15例,>1年13例。采用Kaplan-Meier法计算肝脏再移植术后受者生存时间并绘制生存曲线,采用Breslow法比较再移植间隔时间>1年及≤1年的受者1、5和10年生存率,采用Fisher确切概率法比较不同供肝来源的受者再移植率。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。 结果截至2018年5月,31例肝脏再移植受者术后12例存活(38.7%)、19例死亡(61.3%),中位生存时间为17个月(2～102个月)。尸体供肝、DCD供肝和活体供肝再移植率分别为3.4%(23/686)、1.7%(6/346)和0.8%(3/367)。尸体供肝再移植率高于活体肝移植,差异有统计学意义(P＝0.007),DCD供肝再移植率与尸体供肝、活体供肝再移植率相比,差别均无统计学意义(P＝0.137和0.222)。其中18例再移植间隔时间<1年的受者,6例存活、12例死亡;13例再移植间隔时间≥1年的受者,6例存活、7例死亡。31例肝脏再移植受者术后1、5和10年生存率分别为64.2%、51.2%和46.6%。再移植间隔时间<1年的受者1、3和5年生存率分别为49.4%、41.2%和30.9%,间隔时间≥1年的受者1、3和5年生存率分别为84.6%、65.8%和65.8%,二者差异无统计学意义(χ²＝2.946,P>0.05)。 结论再移植是肝移植术后移植物失功的唯一有效治疗方法,再移植术后受者往往病情危重,围手术期死亡率高,胆道并发症及排斥反应是再次肝移植的主要原因。应该慎重把握再移植手术时机,目前亟待更多的研究对再移植做进一步探讨。     

Clinical and Histopathologic Comparative Analysis Between Kidney Transplant Recipients From Expanded-Criteria Donors and Standard-Criteria Donors

Owing to the disparity between the supply of kidney donors and demand, the use of organs from older deceased donors was initiated in recent years. The potentially poor outcome of these grafts is a major concern. This retrospective study compares graft and patient 1-year survivals between recipients from expanded-criteria donors (ECD; n = 30) and standard-criteria donors (SCD; n = 104). Rates of delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and chronic injury in the pre-implantation biopsy were also assessed. Increasing donor age was associated with increased rates of DGF, and DGF correlated with AR. Cold ischemia time >30 hours was associated with worse graft outcomes. Induction with Simulect correlated with better patient survival compared with Timoglobulina. Chronic injury pre-implantation biopsy correlated with worse renal function, but graft survival was similar. Death-censored graft survival at 1 year was 90% and patient survival 82%, and these were similar in ECD and SCD recipients. Selection of transplant candidates for ECD kidneys must be performed with caution. One-year graft survival was similar to that of SCD kidneys, but kidney function was worse during the same period. This may result in poorer graft survival over longer follow-up.     

Survival following liver transplantation from non-heart-beating donors

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient and graft survival following transplantation with non-heart-beating donor (NHBD) hepatic allografts is equivalent to heart-beating-donor (HBD) allografts. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: With the growing disparity between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation and a limited supply of cadaveric organs, there is renewed interest in the use of hepatic allografts from NHBDs. Limited outcome data addressing this issue exist. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of graft and patient survival among adult recipients of NHBD hepatic allografts compared with recipients of HBD livers between 1993 and 2001 using the United Network of Organ Sharing database. RESULTS: NHBD (N = 144) graft survival was significantly shorter than HBD grafts (N = 26856). One- and 3-year graft survival was 70.2% and 63.3% for NHBD recipients versus 80.4% and 72.1% (P = 0.003 and P = 0.012) for HBD recipients. Recipients of an NHBD graft had a greater incidence of primary nonfunction (11.8 vs. 6.4%, P = 0.008) and retransplantation (13.9% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.04) compared with HBD recipients. Prolonged cold ischemic time and recipient life support were predictors of early graft failure among recipients of NHBD livers. Although differences in patient survival following NHBD versus HBD transplant did not meet statistical significance, a strong trend was evident that likely has relevant clinical implications. CONCLUSIONS: Graft and patient survival is inferior among recipients of NHBD livers. NHBD donors remain an important source of hepatic grafts; however, judicious use is warranted, including minimization of cold ischemia and use in stable recipients.     

Outcomes of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: a single institution's experience with 335 consecutive cases

OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes for both donors and recipients of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (AALDLT) and independent factors impacting those outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Deceased donors for organ transplantation remain extremely rare, making living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) practically the sole therapeutic modality for patients with end-stage liver disease in Japan. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of initial LDLT for 335 consecutive adult (>or=18 years) patients performed between November 1994 and December 2003. RESULTS:: Of the 335 recipients, 275 received right-liver grafts and the remaining 60 recipients received non-right-liver grafts. Three of the 335 liver grafts were domino-splitting livers. Sixty of the 332 donors other than the domino-donors showed major postoperative complications. Multivariate analysis indicated that accumulation of case experience significantly and advantageously affected the surgical outcomes of these living liver donors, and right-liver donation and prolonged donor operation time were shown to be independent risk factors of major complications in the donors. Post-transplant patient and graft survival estimates were 73.1% and 72.5% at 1 year, 67.7% and 66.3% at 4 years, and 64.7% and 61.9% at 7 years, respectively. Obvious pretransplant encephalopathy, a higher (>or=31) modified Model for End-stage Liver Disease score (including points for persistent ascites and low serum sodium) and higher donor age (>or=50 years) were indicated as independent factors predictive of graft failure (graft loss or death) in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Graft type and degree of experience exerted a significant impact on the surgical outcomes of AALDLT donors but did not significantly affect the survival outcomes of AALDLT recipients. Better pretransplant conditions and younger age (<50 years) among the living donors appeared to be advantageous in terms of gaining better survival outcomes of patients undergoing AALDLT.     

Optimal utilization of donor grafts with extended criteria: a single-center experience in over 1000 liver transplants

OBJECTIVE: Severely limited organ resources mandate maximum utilization of donor allografts for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). This work aimed to identify factors that impact survival outcomes for extended criteria donors (ECD) and developed an ECD scoring system to facilitate graft-recipient matching and optimize utilization of ECDs. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of over 1000 primary adult OLTs at UCLA. Extended criteria (EC) considered included donor age (>55 years), donor hospital stay (>5 days), cold ischemia time (>10 hours), and warm ischemia time (>40 minutes). One point was assigned for each extended criterion. Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 1153 allografts considered in the study, 568 organs exhibited no extended criteria (0 score), while 429, 135 and 21 donor allografts exhibited an EC score of 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Overall 1-year patient survival rates were 88%, 82%, 77% and 48% for recipients with EC scores of 0, 1, 2 and 3 respectively (P < 0.001). Adjusting for recipient age and urgency at the time of transplantation, multivariate analysis identified an ascending mortality risk ratio of 1.4 and 1.8 compared to a score of 0 for an EC score of 1, and 2 (P < 0.01) respectively. In contrast, an EC score of 3 was associated with a mortality risk ratio of 4.5 (P < 0.001). Further, advanced recipient age linearly increased the death hazard ratio, while an urgent recipient status increased the risk ratio of death by 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Extended criteria donors can be scored using readily available parameters. Optimizing perioperative variables and matching ECD allografts to appropriately selected recipients are crucial to maintain acceptable outcomes and represent a preferable alternative to both high waiting list mortality and to a potentially futile transplant that utilizes an ECD for a critically ill recipient.     

Preliminary results of a clinical randomized study comparing Celsior and HTK solutions in liver preservation for transplantation

INTRODUCTION: A prospective, randomized, multicenter, open clinical trial was performed to compare the main liver function tests, postoperative complications, and early graft and patient survival of recipients transplanted with livers preserved in Celsior (CEL) versus histidine tryptophan ketoglutarate (HTK) solutions. METHODS: We analyzed the data from a single center. Forty livers randomized to CEL (n = 20) or HTK (n = 20) preservation solution were perfused in situ via the aorta and portal vein (CEL, 30 mL/kg via portal vein and 60 mL/kg via aorta; and HTK solution, 30 mL/kg via portal vein and 120 mL/kg via aorta). RESULTS: The groups were comparable with regard to donor, graft, and recipient characteristics. The mean cold ischemia time was 458 minutes (range: 203-667 minutes) in CEL and 450 (range: 310-684 minutes) in HTK. The incidence of initial poor function and primary nonfunction in CEL and HTK were (0 vs 1) and (0 vs 1), respectively. No differences were observed for acute rejection. No vascular or biliary complications were reported in either group. The 3-month graft and patient survival rates were 95% and 95% in CEL and 80% and 90% in HTK. The 12-month graft and patient survival rates were 90% and 90% in CEL and 75% and 85% in HTK. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first report comparing CEL and HTK preservation solutions in clinical liver preservation. Although a greater 1-year graft and patient survival was observed in the CEL group, a definitive evaluation comparing CEL and HTK solutions in clinical preservation must await completion of the trial.     

Split Liver Transplantation for Two Adult Recipients: An Initial Experience

The shortage of cadaver donor livers has been most severe for adult patients. Split liver transplantation is one method to expand the donor pool, but to have a significant impact on the waiting list, it needs to be applied for 2 adult recipients. We split livers from 6 cadaver donors, and transplanted 12 adult recipients. All splits were performed in situ with transection through the midplane of the liver, resulting in a right lobe and a left lobe graft. Mean donor age was 19.7 years; mean donor weight was 79.1 kg. Mean recipient age was 41.5 years. Mean weight of right lobe recipients was 89 kg; left lobe recipients, 60 kg. All donors were hemodynamically stable and had normal liver function tests. Mean operative time for the procurement was 7.4 h. Average blood loss during the transection of the liver was 490 mL. Mean GW/ RW ratio for all recipients was 0.87%; right lobe recipients, 0.86%; and left lobe recipients, 0.88%. With mean follow-up of 9.3 months, patient and graft survival rates were both 83.3%. There were 2 deaths: 1 after hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) and subsequent multiorgan failure; the other after HAT, a liver retransplant, and subsequent gram-negative sepsis. The remaining 10 recipients are doing well. We observed no cases of primary nonfunction. Other complications included bile leak and/or stenosis (n = 3), bleeding from the Roux loop (n = 1), bleeding after percutaneous biopsy (n = 1), and incisional hernia (n = 1). In conclusion, split liver transplantation, using 1 cadaver liver for 2 adult recipients, can be performed successfully. Crucial to success is proper donor and recipient selection.