TY - JOUR
T1 - Liver transplant outcomes using late allocation grafts
AU - Jadlowiec, Caroline C.
AU - Brooks, Abigail
AU - Pont, Kylie
AU - Macdonough, Elizabeth
AU - Buckner Petty, Skye
AU - Valenti, Kristi
AU - Lizaola-Mayo, Blanca
AU - Frasco, Peter
AU - Aqel, Bashar A
AU - Mathur, Amit K.
AU - Moss, Adyr
AU - Reddy, Kunam S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 John Wiley and Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Post-cross clamp late allocation (LA) liver allografts are at increased risk for discard for many reasons including logistical complexity. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to match 2 standard allocation (SA) offers to every 1 LA liver offer performed at our center between 2015 and 2021. Propensity scores were based on a logistic regression model including recipient age, recipient sex, graft type (donation after circulatory death vs. donation after brain death), Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), and DRI score. During this time, 101 liver transplants (LT) were performed at our center using LA offers. In comparing LA and SA offers, there were no differences in recipient characteristics including indication for transplant (p = 0.29), presence of PVT (p = 0.19), TIPS (p = 0.83), and HCC status (p = 0.24). LA grafts came from younger donors (mean age 43.6 vs. 48.9 y, p = 0.009) and were more likely to come from regional or national Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) (p < 0.001). Cold ischemia time was longer for LA grafts (median 8.5 vs 6.3 h, p < 0.001). Following LT, there were no differences between the 2 groups in intensive care unit (p = 0.22) and hospital (p = 0.49) lengths of stay, need for endoscopic interventions (p = 0.55), or biliary strictures (p = 0.21). Patient (HR 1.0, 95% CI, 0.47-2.15, p = 0.99) and graft (HR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.43-3.50, p = 0.70) survival did not vary between the LA and SA cohorts. One-year LA and SA patient survival was 95.1% and 95.0%; 1-year graft survival was 93.1% and 92.1%, respectively. Despite the additional logistical complexity and longer cold ischemia time, LT outcomes utilizing LA grafts are similar to those allocated by means of SA. Improving allocation policies specific to LA offers, as well as the sharing of best practices between transplant centers and OPOs, are opportunities to further help minimize unnecessary discards.
AB - Post-cross clamp late allocation (LA) liver allografts are at increased risk for discard for many reasons including logistical complexity. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to match 2 standard allocation (SA) offers to every 1 LA liver offer performed at our center between 2015 and 2021. Propensity scores were based on a logistic regression model including recipient age, recipient sex, graft type (donation after circulatory death vs. donation after brain death), Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), and DRI score. During this time, 101 liver transplants (LT) were performed at our center using LA offers. In comparing LA and SA offers, there were no differences in recipient characteristics including indication for transplant (p = 0.29), presence of PVT (p = 0.19), TIPS (p = 0.83), and HCC status (p = 0.24). LA grafts came from younger donors (mean age 43.6 vs. 48.9 y, p = 0.009) and were more likely to come from regional or national Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) (p < 0.001). Cold ischemia time was longer for LA grafts (median 8.5 vs 6.3 h, p < 0.001). Following LT, there were no differences between the 2 groups in intensive care unit (p = 0.22) and hospital (p = 0.49) lengths of stay, need for endoscopic interventions (p = 0.55), or biliary strictures (p = 0.21). Patient (HR 1.0, 95% CI, 0.47-2.15, p = 0.99) and graft (HR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.43-3.50, p = 0.70) survival did not vary between the LA and SA cohorts. One-year LA and SA patient survival was 95.1% and 95.0%; 1-year graft survival was 93.1% and 92.1%, respectively. Despite the additional logistical complexity and longer cold ischemia time, LT outcomes utilizing LA grafts are similar to those allocated by means of SA. Improving allocation policies specific to LA offers, as well as the sharing of best practices between transplant centers and OPOs, are opportunities to further help minimize unnecessary discards.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85178354965&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85178354965&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000208
DO - 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000208
M3 - Article
C2 - 37432903
AN - SCOPUS:85178354965
SN - 1527-6465
VL - 29
SP - 1323
EP - 1329
JO - Liver Transplantation
JF - Liver Transplantation
IS - 12
ER -