Search

Although the utilization of donation after circulatory death donors (DCDs) for liver transplantation (LT) has increased steadily, much controversy remains, and no common acceptance criteria exist with regard to donor and recipient risk factors and prediction models. A consensus conference was organized by International Liver Transplantation Society on January 31, 2020, in Venice, Italy, to review the current clinical practice worldwide regarding DCD-LT and to develop internationally accepted guidelines. The format of the conference was based on the grade system. International experts in this field were allocated to 6 working groups and prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. Working group members and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and recommendations provided by working group 2, covering the entire spectrum of donor and recipient risk factors and prediction models in DCD-LT., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Liver transplantation (LT) from controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) was initiated in France in 2015 under a protocol based on the use of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) before organ procurement. The aim was to compare outcomes following cDCD LT with NRP and donation after brain death (DBD) LT., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study comparing cDCD LT with NRP and DBD LT. A case-matched study (1:2) was performed using the variables such as recipient and donor age, indication of LT., Results: A total of 50 patients from the cDCD group were matched to 100 patients from the DBD group. From postoperative days 1-4, serum transaminase release was significantly lower in the cDCD group compared to the DBD group (P < 0.05). Early allograft dysfunction (cDCD: 18% versus DBD: 32%; P = 0.11), acute kidney injury (26% versus 33%; P = 0.49), 90-d graft loss (2% versus 5%; P = 0.66), and arterial (4% versus 12%; P = 0.19) and biliary (16% versus 17%; P = 0.94) complications were similar between the 2 groups. The 2-y graft survival was 88% for cDCD group and 85% for DBD group (P = 0.91). The 2-y patient survival was 90% for cDCD group and 88% for DBD group (P = 0.68)., Conclusions: This study provides evidence that cDCD LT following postmortem NRP can be safely and effectively performed in selected recipients with similar graft and patient survival outcomes, without increased rates of biliary complications and early graft dysfunction compared to DBD LT.

Objective: To assess the first three years of French activity related to liver transplantation from uncontrolled donation after cardiac death (uDCD)., Study Design: Prospective and observational study in the three active centres authorized by the French Biomedicine Agency., Patients and Methods: All patients deceased between 2010 and 2012 after an uncontrolled cardiac arrest admitted to one of three centres (Pitié-Salpêtrière, Saint-Louis or Bicêtre hospitals, AP-HP, Paris, France) and potentially eligible for liver recovery were included. Abdominal normothermic oxygenated recirculation (ANOR) was used for graft preservation., Results: One hundred twenty-six potential uDCD donors were identified as eligible for liver recovery after hospital admission. The main causes of organ recovery failure were technical failure related to ANOR (29 patients, 23%), refusal of consent (39 patients, 31% of potential uDCD donors and 40% of asked relatives) and abnormal hepatic transaminases up to 200 UI.L(-1) during ANOR (24 patients, 19%). Finally, 11 livers were transplanted. Process efficiency was 9% [95% CI: 4-15%]. One-year recipient survival was 82%, [95% CI: 48-98%] and one-year graft survival was 64% [95% CI: 31-89%]., Conclusion: Liver transplantation from uDCD donors is achievable in France, despite low process efficiency., (Copyright © 2015 Société française d’anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)