Utilization of livers donated after circulatory death for transplantation - An international comparison.

BACKGROUND AND AIM Liver graft utilization rates are a hot topic due to the worldwide organ shortage and an increasing number of transplant candidates on waiting lists. Liver perfusion techniques have been introduced in several countries, and may help to increase the organ supply, as they potentially allow the assessment of livers before use. METHODS Liver offers were counted from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors (Maastricht-type-III) arising during the past decade in eight countries, including Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, UK, and US. Initial DCD-type-III liver offers were correlated with accepted, recovered and implanted livers. RESULTS A total number of 34`269 DCD livers were offered, resulting in 9`780 liver transplants (28.5%). The discard rates were highest in UK and US, ranging between 70 and 80%. In contrast, much lower DCD liver discard rates, e.g., between 30-40%, were found in Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. In addition, large differences were recognized in the use of various machine perfusion techniques, and in terms of risk factors in the cohorts of implanted livers. For example, the median donor age and functional donor warm ischemia were highest in Italy, e.g., >40minutes, followed by Switzerland, France, and the Netherlands. Importantly, such varying risk profiles of accepted DCD livers between countries did not translate into large differences in five-year graft survival rates, which ranged between 60-82% in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS We highlight a significant number of discarded and consequently unused DCD liver offers. Countries with more routine use of in- and ex-situ machine perfusion strategies showed better DCD utilization rates without compromised outcome. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS A significant number of Maastricht type III DCD livers are discarded across Europe and North America today. The overall utilization rate among eight Western countries is 28.5%, but varies significantly between 18.9% and 74.2%. For example, the median DCD III liver utilization in five countries, e.g., Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and Spain is 65%, in contrast to 24% in the Netherlands, UK and US. Despite this, and despite different rules and strategies for organ acceptance and preservation, the one and five-year graft survival remains currently relatively comparable among all participating countries. Factors which impact on DCD liver acceptance rates include the national pre-selections of donors, before the offer is made, as well as cutoffs for key risk factors, including donor age and donor warm ischemia time. In addition, a highly varying experience with modern machine perfusion technology is noticed. In situ and ex situ liver perfusion concepts, and assessment tools for type III DCD livers before transplantation may be one key part for the observed differences in better DCD III utilization

A multicentre outcome analysis to define global benchmarks for donation after circulatory death liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: To identify the best possible outcomes in liver transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors (DCD) and to propose outcome values, which serve as reference for individual liver recipients or patient groups. METHODS: Based on 2219 controlled DCD liver transplantations, collected from 17 centres in North America and Europe, we identified 1012 low-risk, primary, adult liver transplantations with a laboratory MELD of ≤20points, receiving a DCD liver with a total donor warm ischemia time of ≤30minutes and asystolic donor warm ischemia time of ≤15minutes. Clinically relevant outcomes were selected and complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo-Grading and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Corresponding benchmark cut-offs were based on median values of each centre, where the 75(th)-percentile was considered. RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented between 19.7% and 75% of DCD transplantations in participating centers. The one-year retransplant and mortality rate was 5.23% and 9.01%, respectively. Within the first year of follow-up, 51.1% of recipients developed at least one major complication (≥Clavien-Dindo-Grade-III). Benchmark cut-offs were ≤3days and ≤16days for ICU and hospital stay, ≤66% for severe recipient complications (≥Grade-III), ≤16.8% for ischemic cholangiopathy, and ≤38.9CCI points at one-year posttransplant. Comparisons with higher risk groups showed more complications and impaired graft survival, outside the benchmark cut-offs. Organ perfusion techniques reduced the complications to values below benchmark cut-offs, despite higher graft risk. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high with more than half of recipients developing severe complications during 1-year follow-up. Benchmark cut-offs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess the protective value of new preservation technologies in higher risk groups, and provide a valid comparator cohort for future clinical trials. LAY SUMMARY: The best possible outcomes after liver transplantation of grafts donated after circulatory death (DCD) were defined using the concept of benchmarking. These were based on 2219 liver transplantations following controlled DCD donation in 17 centres worldwide. The following benchmark cut-offs for the most relevant outcome parameters were developed: ICU and hospital stay: ≤3 and ≤16 days; primary non function: ≤2.5%; renal replacement therapy: ≤9.6%; ischemic cholangiopathy: ≤16.8% and anastomotic strictures ≤28.4%. One-year graft loss and mortality were defined as ≤14.4% and 9.6%, respectively. Donor and recipient combinations with higher risk had significantly worse outcomes. The use of novel organ perfusion technology achieved similar, good results in this high-risk group with prolonged donor warm ischemia time, when compared to the benchmark cohort

NEWS AND NOTES 1988, VOL.19, NO.3

https://digitalcommons.rockefeller.edu/news_and_notes_1988/1001/thumbnail.jp

Global disparities in surgeons’ workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study

: The workload of general surgeons is multifaceted, encompassing not only surgical procedures but also a myriad of other responsibilities. From April to May 2023, we conducted a CHERRIES-compliant internet-based survey analyzing clinical practice, academic engagement, and post-on-call rest. The questionnaire featured six sections with 35 questions. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression (SPSS® v. 28). The survey received a total of 1.046 responses (65.4%). Over 78.0% of responders came from Europe, 65.1% came from a general surgery unit; 92.8% of European and 87.5% of North American respondents were involved in research, compared to 71.7% in Africa. Europe led in publishing research studies (6.6 ± 8.6 yearly). Teaching involvement was high in North America (100%) and Africa (91.7%). Surgeons reported an average of 6.7 ± 4.9 on-call shifts per month, with European and North American surgeons experiencing 6.5 ± 4.9 and 7.8 ± 4.1 on-calls monthly, respectively. African surgeons had the highest on-call frequency (8.7 ± 6.1). Post-on-call, only 35.1% of respondents received a day off. Europeans were most likely (40%) to have a day off, while African surgeons were least likely (6.7%). On the adjusted multivariable analysis HDI (Human Development Index) (aOR 1.993) hospital capacity > 400 beds (aOR 2.423), working in a specialty surgery unit (aOR 2.087), and making the on-call in-house (aOR 5.446), significantly predicted the likelihood of having a day off after an on-call shift. Our study revealed critical insights into the disparities in workload, access to research, and professional opportunities for surgeons across different continents, underscored by the HDI

Split-liver activity in an Italian transplant program: An update

12nonenoneDe Feo Tullia M.; Colledan Michele; Andorno Enzo; De Carlis Luciano G.; Cillo Umberto; Rossi Giorgio; Baccarani U; Regalia Enrico; Donataccio Matteo; Risaliti Andrea; Di Silvestre Adriana; Scalamogna MarioDe Feo Tullia, M.; Colledan, Michele; Andorno, Enzo; De Carlis Luciano, G.; Cillo, Umberto; Rossi, Giorgio; Baccarani, Umberto; Regalia, Enrico; Donataccio, Matteo; Risaliti, Andrea; Di Silvestre, Adriana; Scalamogna, Mari

Utilization of livers donated after circulatory death for transplantation - An international comparison.

peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND AND AIM: Liver graft utilization rates are a hot topic due to the worldwide organ shortage and an increasing number of transplant candidates on waiting lists. Liver perfusion techniques have been introduced in several countries, and may help to increase the organ supply, as they potentially allow the assessment of livers before use. METHODS: Liver offers were counted from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors (Maastricht-type-III) arising during the past decade in eight countries, including Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, UK, and US. Initial DCD-type-III liver offers were correlated with accepted, recovered and implanted livers. RESULTS: A total number of 34`269 DCD livers were offered, resulting in 9`780 liver transplants (28.5%). The discard rates were highest in UK and US, ranging between 70 and 80%. In contrast, much lower DCD liver discard rates, e.g., between 30-40%, were found in Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. In addition, large differences were recognized in the use of various machine perfusion techniques, and in terms of risk factors in the cohorts of implanted livers. For example, the median donor age and functional donor warm ischemia were highest in Italy, e.g., >40minutes, followed by Switzerland, France, and the Netherlands. Importantly, such varying risk profiles of accepted DCD livers between countries did not translate into large differences in five-year graft survival rates, which ranged between 60-82% in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight a significant number of discarded and consequently unused DCD liver offers. Countries with more routine use of in- and ex-situ machine perfusion strategies showed better DCD utilization rates without compromised outcome. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: A significant number of Maastricht type III DCD livers are discarded across Europe and North America today. The overall utilization rate among eight Western countries is 28.5%, but varies significantly between 18.9% and 74.2%. For example, the median DCD III liver utilization in five countries, e.g., Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and Spain is 65%, in contrast to 24% in the Netherlands, UK and US. Despite this, and despite different rules and strategies for organ acceptance and preservation, the one and five-year graft survival remains currently relatively comparable among all participating countries. Factors which impact on DCD liver acceptance rates include the national pre-selections of donors, before the offer is made, as well as cutoffs for key risk factors, including donor age and donor warm ischemia time. In addition, a highly varying experience with modern machine perfusion technology is noticed. In situ and ex situ liver perfusion concepts, and assessment tools for type III DCD livers before transplantation may be one key part for the observed differences in better DCD III utilization

Recurrence of Hepatitis B Infection in Liver Transplant Patients Receiving Long-Term Hepatitis B Immunoglobulin Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND Long-term real-world data are relatively sparse regarding recurrence of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection after liver transplantation using hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIg) and nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) prophylaxis. MATERIAL AND METHODS Data from 371 adults transplanted for HBV-related disease at 20 European centers and given HBIg for ³12 months ± NUC therapy were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS HBIg comprised Hepatect® (iv HBIgB; n=299), subcutaneous Zutectra® (sc HBIg, n=236), and other HBIg preparations (n=130); 93.5% received NUC therapy. Mean follow-up was 6.8±3.5 years. The primary efficacy variable, freedom from HBV recurrence, occurred in 95.7% of patients (95% CI [93.1%, 97.5%]). The observed incidence of recurrence was 16/371 (4.3%) (annual rate 0.65%); 5/16 patients with recurrence had discontinued HBIg and 7/16 had anti-HBs <100 IU/l. Excluding these 7 patients, the HBV recurrence rate was 2.4%. The recurrence rate while on HBIg therapy was 1 per 2069 months. In patients who discontinued HBIg, risk of HBV recurrence versus sc HBIg users was increased by 5.2-fold (1 per 1 603 versus 1 per 8379 treatment months). The annual rate of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence was 1.7%. CONCLUSIONS These results support the long-term use of HBIg with NUC therapy as an effective management strategy to minimize risk of HBV recurrence and virus-related complications after liver transplantation

Preliminary Analysis of the Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Italian Liver Transplant Programs

Liver Transplant Programs in Italy have faced a sequela of management and clinical decision-making problems due to the high incidence in some regions of the country of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The Italian Society for Organ Transplantation (SITO) and the Board of Liver Transplant Program Directors issued a survey to assess the initial impact of this pandemic event on the routine activity of 22 Italian Liver Transplant Programs. One hundred percent of participants completed the survey within a few days. The analysis is presented dividing the centers in two macro-areas: north-central Italy and south-central Italy. The reason for this is that the two areas had a different incidence of the infection and because they have distinctive rates of cadaveric donation. Overall, all centers remained open although a reduction in the activity was noted. Transplant Programs reduced their outpatient activity both in terms of pre-transplant evaluation (68% of the centers) and transplant recipient follow-up (100%); a reduction in transplant activity was observed in the first two weeks of March only in the north-central macro area (23 LTs vs 39 in 2018 and 60 in 2019); overall, SARS-CoV-2 infection was registered for 24 liver transplant recipients and 37 health care providers in liver transplant units. In the perspective of the increasing magnitude of the epidemic, more data will be required to define appropriate strategies for the increasingly complex management of liver transplant patients