Search

Background: We examined the combined effects of donor age and graft type on pediatric liver transplantation outcomes with an aim to offer insights into the strategic utilization of these donor and graft options. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using a national database on 0–2‐year‐old (N = 2714) and 3–17‐year‐old (N = 2263) pediatric recipients. These recipients were categorized based on donor age (≥40 vs <40 years) and graft type. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models, followed by an intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis to examine overall patient survival. Results: Living and younger donors generally resulted in better outcomes compared to deceased and older donors, respectively. This difference was more significant among younger recipients (0–2 years compared to 3–17 years). Despite this finding, ITT survival analysis showed that donor age and graft type did not impact survival with the exception of 0–2‐year‐old recipients who had an improved survival with a younger living donor graft. Conclusions: Timely transplantation has the largest impact on survival in pediatric recipients. Improving waitlist mortality requires uniform surgical expertise at many transplant centers to provide technical variant graft (TVG) options and shed the conservative mindset of seeking only the "best" graft for pediatric recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adult liver transplant programs have heretofore been hesitant to perform liver retransplantation in adult patients who underwent primary liver transplantation as a child (P_A). Areas of concern include: (a) potential disruption in care when transferring from a pediatric to an adult transplant center; (b) generally inferior outcomes of retransplantation; (c) reputation of young adults for non‐adherence to post‐transplant regimen; and (d) potential higher work effort for equivalent outcomes. To examine these concerns, we reviewed data on all US liver adult retransplants from 10/01/1987 to 9/30/2017. We propensity matched the P_A patients to patients who received both primary and retransplantation as adults (A_A), with ≥550 days between transplants. A mixed Cox proportional hazards model with program size and time period of transplantation as random variables revealed that retransplantation of P_A patients produced no significantly different graft survival or patient survival rates than retransplantation of the matched A_A patients. Therefore, inferior rates of liver retransplantation in these patients and concerns about continuity of care in changing transplant programs are not as believed in the wider liver transplant community. In conclusion, liver transplant centers should be optimistic about retransplanting adults who received their primary transplants as children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]