Search

Background: Shortages of liver allografts for children awaiting transplantation have led to high LT waitlist mortality. Prior studies have shown that usage of TVG can reduce waiting time and waitlist mortality, but their use is not universal. We sought to compare patient and graft survival between WLG and TVG and to identify potential associated risk factors in a contemporary pediatric LT cohort. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patient survival, graft survival, and biliary and vascular complications for LT recipients <18 years old entered into the Society of Pediatric Liver Transplantation prospective multicenter database. Results: Of 1839 LT recipients, 1029 received a WLG and 810 received a TVG from either a LD or a DD. There was no difference in patient survival or graft survival by graft type. Three‐year patient survival and graft survival were 96%, 93%, and 96%, and 95%, 89%, and 92% for TVG‐LD, TVG‐DD, and WLG, respectively. Biliary complications were more frequent in TVG. Hepatic artery thrombosis was more frequent in WLG. Multivariate analysis revealed primary diagnosis was the only significant predictor of patient survival. Predictors for graft survival included time‐dependent development of biliary and vascular complications. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in patient and graft survival based on graft types in this North American multi‐center pediatric cohort. Widespread routine use of TVG should be strongly encouraged to decrease mortality on the waitlist for pediatric LT candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) has increased slowly over the past decade. Given that transplant surgeons generally determine liver offer acceptance, understanding surgeon incentives and disincentives is paramount. The purpose of this study was to assess aggregate travel distance per successful DCD versus deceased after brain death (DBD) liver procurement as a surrogate for surgeon time expenditure and opportunity cost. All consecutive liver offers made to Michigan Medicine from 2006 to 2017 were analyzed. Primary outcome was the summative travel distance (spent on all attempted procurements) per successful liver procurement that resulted in LT. Donation after circulatory death liver offer acceptance was lower than DBD liver offers, as was proportion of successful procurements among accepted offers. Overall, 10 275 miles were travelled for accepted DCD liver offers, resulting in 23 successful procurements (mean 447 miles per successful DCD liver procurement). For accepted DBD liver offers, 197 299 miles were travelled, resulting in 863 successful procurements (mean 229 miles per successful DBD liver procurement). On average, each successful DCD liver procurement required 218 more miles of travel than each successful DBD liver procurement. Current reimbursement policies poorly reflect increased surgeon travel (and time) expenditures between DCD and DBD liver offers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Liver transplantation is definitive therapy for end stage liver disease in pediatric patients. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with the left lateral segment (LLS) is often a feasible option. However, the size of LLS is an important factor in donor suitability – particularly when the recipient weighs less than 10 kg. In the present study, we sought to define a formula for estimating left lateral segment volume (LLSV) in potential LLS donors. We obtained demographic and anthropometric measurements on 50 patients with Computed Tomography (CT) scans to determine whole liver volume (WLV), right liver volume (RLV), and LLSV. We performed univariable and multivariable linear regression with backwards stepwise variable selection (p < 0.10) to determine final models. Our study found that previously reported anthropometric and demographics variables correlated with volume were significantly associated with WLV and RLV. On univariable analysis, no demographic or anthropometric measures were correlated with LLSV. On multivariable analysis, LLSV was poorly predicted by the final model (R2 = 0.10, Coefficient of Variation [CV] = 42.2) relative to WLV (R2 = 0.33, CV = 18.8) and RLV (R2 = 0.41, CV = 15.8). Potential LLS living donors should not be excluded based on anthropometric data: all potential donors should be evaluated regardless of their size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]