DonorNet and the Potential Effects on Organ Utilization

The evolution of communication as donor data flows from organ procurement organization to transplant centers has evolved with the incorporation of DonorNet 2007 ® into the UNet SM system. The ensuing study looks at DonorNet's impact on this process. We established defined time periods for comparison purposes. The study looked at match number for organ placement and overall organ utilization with a focus on ischemia time and graft outcomes. The results of the study demonstrate no significant change in the median match number of organ placement in liver or kidney transplantation. Changes in discard rates were varied amongst transplanted organs and there were noticeable changes in organ sharing with an increase in local allocation for kidney and liver and an ensuing decrease in regional and national distribution. There were no significant differences in the outcomes of livers and kidneys with low offer numbers compared with those with high offer numbers. Overall the study suggests a modest impact by DonorNet on organ placement and utilization, but a longer term study would need to be done to fully evaluate its impact.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79141/1/j.1600-6143.2010.03036.x.pd

Response: DonorNet and the Potential Effects on Organ Utilization

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79092/1/j.1600-6143.2010.03230.x.pd

Liver regeneration after living donor transplantation: Adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109827/1/lt23966.pd

Changes in liver and spleen volumes after living liver donation: A report from the adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110585/1/lt24062.pd

Biliary reconstructive techniques and associated anatomic variants in adult living donor liver transplantations: The adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study experience

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140020/1/lt24872.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140020/2/lt24872_am.pd

Liver transplant recipient survival benefit with living donation in the model for endstage liver disease allocation era

Receipt of a living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been associated with improved survival compared with waiting for a deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT). However, the survival benefit of liver transplant has been questioned for candidates with Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scores <15, and the survival advantage of LDLT has not been demonstrated during the MELD allocation era, especially for low MELD patients. Transplant candidates enrolled in the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study after February 28, 2002 were followed for a median of 4.6 years. Starting at the time of presentation of the first potential living donor, mortality for LDLT recipients was compared to mortality for patients who remained on the waiting list or received DDLT (no LDLT group) according to categories of MELD score (<15 or ≥15) and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Of 868 potential LDLT recipients (453 with MELD <15; 415 with MELD ≥15 at entry), 712 underwent transplantation (406 LDLT; 306 DDLT), 83 died without transplant, and 73 were alive without transplant at last follow‐up. Overall, LDLT recipients had 56% lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32‐0.60; P < 0.0001). Among candidates without HCC, mortality benefit was seen both with MELD <15 (HR = 0.39; P = 0.0003) and MELD ≥15 (HR = 0.42; P = 0.0006). Among candidates with HCC, a benefit of LDLT was not seen for MELD <15 (HR = 0.82, P = 0.65) but was seen for MELD ≥15 (HR = 0.29, P = 0.043). Conclusion: Across the range of MELD scores, patients without HCC derived a significant survival benefit when undergoing LDLT rather than waiting for DDLT in the MELD liver allocation era. Low MELD candidates with HCC may not benefit from LDLT. (H EPATOLOGY 2011;54:1313–1321)Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86878/1/24494_ftp.pd

Liver transplant recipient survival benefit with living donation in the MELD allocation era,,

Receipt of a living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been associated with improved survival compared with waiting for a deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT). However, the survival benefit of liver transplant has been questioned for candidates with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores< 15, and the survival advantage of LDLT has not been demonstrated during the MELD allocation era, especially for low MELD patients. Transplant candidates enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study after 02/28/02 were followed for a median of 4.6 years. Starting at the time of presentation of the first potential living donor, mortality for LDLT recipients was compared to mortality for patients who remained on the waiting list or received DDLT (no LDLT group) according to categories of MELD score

Patterns of Early Allograft Dysfunction in Adult Live Donor Liver Transplantation

BackgroundEarly allograft dysfunction (EAD) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has often been attributed to inadequate graft size, and termed small-for-size syndrome. Early allograft dysfunction definitions include a variable constellation of findings, including hyperbilirubinemia, coagulopathy, encephalopathy, and ascites formation. Among putative causes of EAD after LDLT are excessive portal pressure and/or flow. Our objective was to evaluate patterns of EAD after LDLT.MethodsIn this study, 631 LDLT recipients were monitored for complications, EAD (defined by postoperative day 7 bilirubin &gt;10 mg/dL or international normalized ratio &gt;1.6), and graft failure. Approximately 200 had portal venous and arterial pressure and flow measurements before and after LDLT. Portal inflow modification (splenic artery ligation, hemiportocaval shunt, or splenectomy) was performed at the discretion of the operating surgeon. Associations between EAD and recipient, donor, and transplant factors were examined using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsRisk of EAD was associated with left lobe grafts, lower graft weight among left lobes, higher preoperative bilirubin, higher portal reperfusion pressure, higher donor age, and higher donor body mass index. The risk of graft loss within the first 90 days was 5.2 times higher for recipients with EAD versus those without EAD (P &lt; 0.001).ConclusionsEarly allograft dysfunction can be defined using postoperative day 7 laboratory values that are highly predictive of early graft failure within 90 days. Risk factors associated with EAD after LDLT include: graft type and size, preoperative bilirubin, portal reperfusion pressure, donor age, and donor body mass index

Fecal metabolite profiling identifies liver transplant recipients at risk for postoperative infection

Metabolites produced by the intestinal microbiome modulate mucosal immune defenses and optimize epithelial barrier function. Intestinal dysbiosis, including loss of intestinal microbiome diversity and expansion of antibiotic-resistant pathobionts, is accompanied by changes in fecal metabolite concentrations and increased incidence of systemic infection. Laboratory tests that quantify intestinal dysbiosis, however, have yet to be incorporated into clinical practice. We quantified fecal metabolites in 107 patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) and correlated these with fecal microbiome compositions, pathobiont expansion, and postoperative infections. Consistent with experimental studies implicating microbiome-derived metabolites with host-mediated antimicrobial defenses, reduced fecal concentrations of short- and branched-chain fatty acids, secondary bile acids, and tryptophan metabolites correlate with compositional microbiome dysbiosis in LT patients and the relative risk of postoperative infection. Our findings demonstrate that fecal metabolite profiling can identify LT patients at increased risk of postoperative infection and may provide guideposts for microbiome-targeted therapies