Search

Steatotic livers represent a potentially underutilized resource to increase the donor graft pool; however, 1 barrier to the increased utilization of such grafts is the heterogeneity in the definition and the measurement of macrovesicular steatosis (MaS). Digital imaging software (DIS) may better standardize definitions to study posttransplant outcomes. Using HALO, a DIS, we analyzed 63 liver biopsies, from 3 transplant centers, transplanted between 2016 and 2018, and compared macrovesicular steatosis percentage (%MaS) as estimated by transplant center, donor hospital, and DIS. We also quantified the relationship between DIS characteristics and posttransplant outcomes using log-linear regression for peak aspartate aminotransferase, peak alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin on postoperative day 7, as well as logistic regression for early allograft dysfunction. Transplant centers and donor hospitals overestimated %MaS compared with DIS, with better agreement at lower %MaS and less agreement for higher %MaS. No DIS analyzed liver biopsies were calculated to be >20% %MaS; however, 40% of liver biopsies read by transplant center pathologists were read to be >30%. Percent MaS read by HALO was positively associated with peak aspartate aminotransferase (regression coefficient= 1.04 1.08 1.12 , p <0.001), peak alanine aminotransferase (regression coefficient = 1.04 1.08 1.12 , p <0.001), and early allograft dysfunction (OR= 1.10 1.40 1.78 , p =0.006). There was no association between HALO %MaS and total bilirubin on postoperative day 7 (regression coefficient = 0.99 1.01 1.04 , p =0.3). DIS provides reproducible quantification of steatosis that could standardize MaS definitions and identify phenotypes associated with good clinical outcomes to increase the utilization of steatite livers., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Donor livers with ≥30% macrosteatosis (steatotic livers) represent a possible expansion to the donor pool, but are frequently discarded as they are associated with an increased risk of mortality and graft loss. We hypothesized that there are certain recipient phenotypes that would tolerate donor steatosis well, and are therefore best suited to receive these grafts., Methods: Using national registry data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 2006 and 2017, we compared 2048 liver transplant recipients of steatotic livers with 69 394 recipients of nonsteatotic (<30%) livers. We identified recipient factors that amplified the impact of donor steatosis on mortality and graft loss using interaction analysis, classifying recipients without these factors as preferred recipients. We compared mortality and graft loss with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers in preferred and nonpreferred recipients using Cox regression., Results: Preferred recipients of steatotic livers were determined to be first-time recipients with a model for end-stage liver disease 15-34, without primary biliary cirrhosis, and not on life support before transplant. Preferred recipients had no increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.921.041.16; P = 0.5) or graft loss (HR: 0.931.031.15; P = 0.5) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. Conversely, nonpreferred recipients had a 41% increased mortality risk (HR: 1.171.411.70; P < 0.001) and 39% increased risk of graft loss (HR: 1.161.391.66; P < 0.001) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers., Conclusions: The risks of liver transplantation with steatotic donor livers could be minimized by appropriate recipient matching.

Background: Steatotic donor livers (SDLs, ≥30% macrosteatosis on biopsy) are often declined, as they are associated with a higher risk of graft loss, even though candidates may wait an indefinite time for a subsequent organ offer. We sought to quantify outcomes for transplant candidates who declined or accepted an SDL offer., Methods: We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients offer data from 2009 to 2015 to compare outcomes of 759 candidates who accepted an SDL to 13 362 matched controls who declined and followed candidates from the date of decision (decline or accept) until death or end of study period. We used a competing risk framework to understand the natural history of candidates who declined and Cox regression to compare postdecision survival after declining versus accepting (ie, what could have happened if candidates who declined had instead accepted)., Results: Among those who declined an SDL, only 53.1% of candidates were subsequently transplanted, 23.8% died, and 19.4% were removed from the waitlist. Candidates who accepted had a brief perioperative risk period within the first month posttransplant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.493.494.89, P < 0.001), but a 62% lower mortality risk (aHR: 0.310.380.46, P < 0.001) beyond this. Although the long-term survival benefit of acceptance did not vary by candidate model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), the short-term risk period did. MELD 6-21 candidates who accepted an SDL had a 7.88-fold higher mortality risk (aHR: 4.807.8812.93, P < 0.001) in the first month posttransplant, whereas MELD 35-40 candidates had a 68% lower mortality risk (aHR: 0.110.320.90, P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Appropriately selected SDLs can decrease wait time and provide substantial long-term survival benefit for liver transplant candidates.