Search

Introduction Liver acceptance patterns vary significantly between transplant centers. Data pertaining to outcomes of livers declined by local and regional centers and allocated nationally remains limited. Project aim The objective was to compare post-liver transplant outcomes between liver allografts transplanted as a result of national and local-regional allocation. Design This was a retrospective evaluation of 109 nationally allocated liver allografts used for transplant by a single center. Outcomes of nationally allocated grafts were compared to standard allocation grafts (N = 505) during the same period. Results Recipients of nationally allocated grafts had lower model for end stage liver disease scores (17 vs 22, P = .001). Nationally allocated grafts were more likely to be post-cross clamp offers (29.4% vs 13.4%, P = .001) and have longer cold ischemia times (median hours 7.8 vs 5.5, P = .001). Early allograft dysfunction was common (54.1% vs 52.5%, P = .75) and did not impact hospital length of stay (median 5 vs 6 days, P = .89). There were no differences in biliary complications ( P = .11). There were no differences in patient ( P = .88) or graft survival ( P = .35). In a multivariate model, after accounting for differences in cold ischemia time and posttransplant biliary complications, nationally allocated grafts were not associated with increased risk for graft loss (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-1.8). Abnormal liver biopsy findings (33.0%) followed by donor donation after circulatory death status (22.9%) were the most common reasons for decline by local-regional centers. Conclusion Despite longer cold ischemia times, patient and graft survival outcomes remain excellent and comparable to those seen from standard allocation grafts.

As the number of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplants (LTs) performed in the United States continues to increase annually, there has been interest by policy makers to develop a more robust exception point safety net for patients who develop ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) following DCD LT. As such, there is a need for better understanding of the clinical course and long-term outcomes in patients who develop IC, as well as determining if IC can be classified into distinct categories with distinctly different clinical outcomes.All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Clinic Arizona, and Mayo Clinic Rochester from January 1999 to March 2020 were included (N = 770). Outcomes were compared between 4 distinct radiologic patterns of IC: diffuse necrosis, multifocal progressive, confluence dominant, and minor form.In total, 88 (11.4%) patients developed IC, of which 42 (5.5%) were listed for retransplantation of liver (ReLT). Patients with diffuse necrosis and multifocal progressive patterns suffered from frequent hospital admissions for cholangitis in the first year following DCD LT (median 3 and 2), were largely stent dependent (100% and 85.7%), and almost universally required ReLT. Patients with confluence dominant disease were managed with multiple stents and frequently recovered, ultimately becoming stent free without need for ReLT. Patients with the minor form IC did well with limited need for stent placement or repeat procedures and did not require ReLT. Graft survival was different between the 4 distinct IC patterns (P 0.001).The present analysis provides a detailed analysis on the natural history and clinical course of IC. Patients developing IC can be classified into 4 distinct patterns with distinct clinical courses.

Background: Starting in November 2017, 3 liver transplant centers in a single health care system tested and implemented a new protocol to begin accepting livers from hepatitis C virus–seropositive donors for seronegative liver transplant recipients. Although reports show an increase in donors after protocol implementation, there are no details regarding protocol uptake at each transplant center. Literature is limited on protocol implementation that is developed and disseminated by the same protocol producers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a new liver transplant protocol adopted at 3 transplant centers in the same health care system. Methods: A multimethod implementation study using interview, survey, and transplant data was conducted to develop a conceptual model of protocol implementation, identify facilitators of and barriers to implementation, and detect differences in implementation between 3 centers. Results: The conceptual model included 4 domains: rationale, development, implementation, and sustainability. Facilitators included clear, science-based rationale, input from multiple hepatologists, leadership support, and funded pilot data. Barriers included insurance coverage of posttransplant medication and donor field availability. A total of 94 physicians and staff at the 3 transplant centers completed the survey. Implementation factors were all rated moderately high to high at all 3 centers. One-way analysis of variance showed significant differences in mean implementation scores between the centers (F(2, 84)=11.65; PP=.02); post hoc comparisons indicated that the scores for physicians differed only between the leading center and 1 participating center. Transplant numbers increased across all 3 centers from 2017 to 2021. Conclusions: Protocol implementation was successful across all 3 centers, especially at the leading transplant center where the protocol was developed. Future efforts should examine the appropriateness of the protocol for other organs (eg, heart, kidney) and additional medical outcome data (eg, mortality, morbidity, quality of life). Trial Registration: Not applicable

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non-TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow-up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent-free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re-LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98-4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.