Liver transplantation: Expanding the donor and recipient pool

Liver transplantation is an exemplar model of complex surgery and the only curative option for patients with end-stage liver disease. Although historically associated with poor outcomes, liver cancer management has also been revolutionised with liver transplantation and in some instances, survival outcomes are comparable to surgical resection. As such, the key elements underpinning the major advances in surgical technique, immunological therapies and allocation policies combined with improved patient and graft survival outcomes have created a huge demand for organ donation. Despite improvements in donor and recipient selection, there is a persistent disparity between organ supply and demand. Candidate wait-list mortality and dropout rates remain problematic and this concern has resulted in increased efforts to expand the donor pool to meet the unmet needs of the population. This is even more challenging when coupled with an ever-growing recipient pool, candidate waiting lists and an ageing population. Over the past two decades, there has been a considerable focus on extended criteria organs, donations after cardiac death and alternative avenues for marginal liver use. With careful donor selection and recipient matching, these livers may help bridge the gap between supply and demand and placate the ever-expanding recipient pool. Here, we present a summary of recent developments by the transplant community addressing the issues of a growing donor and recipient pool

Economic evaluation of the specialized donor care facility for thoracic organ donor management

Background: Over the last decade two alternative models of donor care have emerged in the United States: the conventional model, whereby donors are managed at the hospital where brain death occurs, and the specialized donor care facility (SDCF), in which brain dead donors are transferred to a SDCF for medical optimization and organ procurement. Despite increasing use of the SDCF model, its cost-effectiveness in comparison to the conventional model remains unknown. Methods: We performed an economic evaluation of the SDCF and conventional model of donor care from the perspective of U.S. transplant centers over a 2-year study period. In this analysis, we utilized nationwide data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and controlled for donor characteristics and patterns of organ sharing across the nation\u27s organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Subgroup analysis was performed to determine the impact of the SDCF model on thoracic organ transplants. Results: A total of 38,944 organ transplants were performed in the U.S. during the study period from 13,539 donors with an observed total organ cost of $1.36 billion. If every OPO assumed the cost and effectiveness of the SDCF model, a predicted 39,155 organ transplants (+211) would have been performed with a predicted total organ cost of$1.26 billion (-$100 million). Subgroup analysis of thoracic organs revealed that the SDCF model would lead to a predicted 156 additional transplants with a cost saving of$24.6 million. Conclusions: The U.S. SDCF model may be a less costly and more effective means of multi-organ donor management, particularly for thoracic organ donors, compared to the conventional hospital-based model

Utility of the Gyrus open forceps in hepatic parenchymal transection

AbstractObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate if the Gyrus open forceps is a safe and efficient tool for hepatic parenchymal transection.BackgroundBlood loss during hepatic transection remains a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality associated with liver surgery. Various electrosurgical devices have been engineered to reduce blood loss. The Gyrus open forceps is a bipolar cautery device which has recently been introduced into hepatic surgery.MethodsWe conducted a single-institution, retrospective review of all liver resections performed from November 2005 through November 2007. Patients undergoing resection of at least two liver segments where the Gyrus was the primary method of transection were included. Patient charts were reviewed; clinicopathological data were collected.ResultsOf the 215 open liver resections performed during the study period, 47 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean patient age was 61 years; 34% were female. The majority required resection for malignant disease (94%); frequent indications included colorectal metastasis (66%), hepatocellular carcinoma (6%) and cholangiocarcinoma (4%). Right hemihepatectomy (49%), left hemihepatectomy (13%) and right trisectionectomy (13%) were the most frequently performed procedures. A total of 26 patients (55%) underwent a major ancillary procedure concurrently. There were no operative mortalities. Median operative time was 220min (range 97–398min). Inflow occlusion was required in nine patients (19%) for a median time of 12min (range 3–30min). Median total estimated blood loss was 400ml (range 10–2000ml) and 10 patients (21%) required perioperative transfusion. All patients had macroscopically negative margins. Median length of stay was 8 days. Two patients (4%) had clinically significant bile leak. The 30-day postoperative mortality was zero.ConclusionsUse of the Gyrus open forceps appears to be a safe and efficient manner of hepatic parenchymal transection which allows rapid transection with acceptable blood loss, a low rate of perioperative transfusion, and minimal postoperative bile leak

Defining Benchmarks in Liver Transplantation: A Multicenter Outcome Analysis Determining Best Achievable Results.

This multicentric study of 17 high-volume centers presents 12 benchmark values for liver transplantation. Those values, mostly targeting markers of morbidity, were gathered from 2024 "low risk" cases, and may serve as reference to assess outcome of single or any groups of patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose benchmark outcome values in liver transplantation, serving as reference for assessing individual patients or any other patient groups. BACKGROUND: Best achievable results in liver transplantation, that is, benchmarks, are unknown. Consequently, outcome comparisons within or across centers over time remain speculative. METHODS: Out of 7492 liver transplantation performed in 17 international centers from 3 continents, we identified 2024 low risk adult cases with a laboratory model for end-stage liver disease score ≤20 points, a balance of risk score ≤9, and receiving a primary graft by donation after brain death. We chose clinically relevant endpoints covering intra- and postoperative course, with a focus on complications graded by severity including the complication comprehensive index (CCI). Respective benchmarks were derived from the median value in each center, and the 75 percentile was considered the benchmark cutoff. RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented 8% to 49% of cases per center. One-year patient-survival was 91.6% with 3.5% retransplantations. Eighty-two percent of patients developed at least 1 complication during 1-year follow-up. Biliary complications occurred in one-fifth of the patients up to 6 months after surgery. Benchmark cutoffs were ≤4 days for ICU stay, ≤18 days for hospital stay, ≤59% for patients with severe complications (≥ Grade III) and ≤42.1 for 1-year CCI. Comparisons with the next higher risk group (model for end stage liver disease 21-30) disclosed an increase in morbidity but within benchmark cutoffs for most, but not all indicators, while in patients receiving a second graft from 1 center (n = 50) outcome values were all outside of benchmark values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high with half of patients developing severe complications during 1-year follow-up. Benchmark cutoffs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess higher risk groups