Search

Liver allocation remains problematic because current policy prioritizes status 2B or 3 patients by waiting time rather than medical urgency. On February 21, 2000, we implemented a variance to the United Network for Organ Sharing liver allocation policy that redefined status 2A by much more rigid, definable criteria and prioritized status 2B patients by using a continuous medical urgency score based on the Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and other medical conditions. In this system, waiting time is used only to differentiate status 2B candidates with equal medical urgency scores. Comparing the 6-month period (period 1; n = 67) before implementation of this system to the 6-month period after implementation (period 2; n = 75), there was a significant reduction in the number of transplantations performed for patients listed as status 2A (46.3% to 14.7%; P =.002) and an increase in the number of patients listed as status 2B who received transplants (44.8% to 70.7%; P =.10). Most dramatically, there was a 37.1% reduction in overall deaths on the waiting list from 94 deaths in period 1 to 62 deaths in period 2 (P =.005), with the most significant reduction for patients removed from this list at status 2B (52 v 18 patients; P =.04). There were 3 postoperative deaths in each period, with only 1 graft lost in period 2. Status 2B patients with the greatest degree of medical urgency received transplants without multiple peer reviews requesting elevation to 2A status. We conclude that a continuous medical urgency score system allocates donor livers much more fairly to those in medical need and reduces waiting list mortality without sacrificing efficacy.

Liver transplantation for patients requiring life-support results in the lowest survival and highest costs. A ten year (1983-1993) regional experience with liver transplantation for critically ill patients was undertaken to ascertain the fate of several subgroups of patients. Of the 828 liver transplants performed at six transplant centers within the region over this period, 168 (20%) were done in patients who met today's criteria for a United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 (emergency) liver transplant candidate. Recipients were classified according to chronicity of disease and transplant number (primary-acute, primary-chronic, reTx-acute, reTx-chronic). Overall one-year survival was 50% for all status 1 recipients. The primary-acute subgroup (n = 63) experienced a 57% one-year survival compared with 50% for the primary-chronic (n = 51) subgroup (P = 0.07). Of the reTx-acute recipients (n = 43), 44% were alive at one year in comparison with 20% for the reTx-chronic (n = 11) group (P = 0.18). There was no significant difference in survival for the following: transplant center, blood group compatibility with donors, age, preservation solution, or graft size. For patients retransplanted for acute reasons (primary graft nonfunction (PGNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis [HAT]), survival was significantly better if a second donor was found within 3 days of relisting (52% vs. 20%; P = 0.012). Over the study period progressively fewer donor organs came from outside the region. No strong survival-based argument can be made for separating, in allocation priority, acute and chronic disease patients facing the first transplant as a status 1 recipient. Clearly patients suffering from PGNF or HAT do far better if retransplanted within 3 days. Establishing an even higher status for recipients with PGNF, perhaps drawing from a supraregional donor pool, would allow surgeons to accept more marginal donors, thus potentially expanding the pool, without significantly compromising patient survival. Retransplantation of the recipient with a chronically failing graft who deteriorates to the point of needing life-support is nearly futile, and in today's health care climate, not an optimal use of scarce donor livers.

Hepatic retransplantation (reTx) offers the only alternative to death for patients who have failed primary hepatic transplantation (PTx). Assuming a finite number of donor organs, reTx also denies the chance of survival for some patients awaiting PTx. The impact of reTx on overall survival (i.e., the survival of all candidates for transplantation) must therefore be clarified. Between 1983 and 1991, 651 patients from the New England Organ Bank underwent liver transplantation, and 73 reTx were performed in 71 patients (11% reTx rate). The 1-year actuarial survival for reTx (48%) was significantly less than for PTx (70%, P < 0.05). This survival varied, dependent on the interval of time following PTx in which the reTx was performed (0-3 days, 57% survival; 4-30 days, 24%; 30-365 days, 54%; and > 365 days, 83%). Patients on the regional waiting list had an 18% mortality rate while awaiting transplantation. These results were incorporated into a mathematical model describing survival as a function of reTx rate, assuming a limited supply of donor livers. ReTx improves the 1-year survival rate for patients undergoing PTx but decreases overall survival (survival of all candidates) for liver transplantation. In the current era of persistently insufficient donor numbers, strategies based on minimizing the use of reTx, especially in the case of patients in whom chances of success are minimal, will result in the best overall rate of patient survival.

The Boston Center for Liver Transplantation has accumulated one of the larger series of liver allograft recipients. This review has provided an opportunity to examine recent pronouncements by Medicare regarding patient selection and survival and to question whether the current allocation scheme best utilizes a scarce supply of donor liver allografts. Patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, sclerosing cholangitis, and metabolic derangements have enjoyed excellent survival: in aggregate, 78.9% at 1 year. In contrast, patients suffering from acute hepatic failure, patients requiring life support, or patients with primary graft failure who need a second liver transplant did poorly compared with other recipient groups: 45% 1-year survival. This center's experience reflects a more realistic expectation of patient survival because it considers the high-risk recipient by diagnosis and urgency status. This study also suggests that assessment of outcome should be a component of allocation planning in the future.