Search

Background: Liver transplantation has increased in volume and provides substantial survival benefit. However, there remains a need for value-based assessment of this costly procedure., Methods: Model for end stage liver disease era adult recipients were identified using United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis file data (n = 75,988) and compared across time periods (period A: February 2002 to January 2007; B: February 2007 to January 2013; C: February 2013 to January 2019). Liver centers were divided into volume tertiles for each period (small, medium, large). Value for the index transplant episode was defined as percentage graft survival ≥1 year divided by mean posttransplant duration of stay., Results: All centers increased value over time due to ubiquitous improvement in 1-year graft survival. However, large centers demonstrated the most significant value change (large +17% vs small +7.0%, P < .001) due to a -8.5% reduction in large centers duration of stay from period A to C, while small centers duration of stay remained unchanged (-0.1%). Large centers delivered higher value despite more complex care: older recipients (54.8 ± 10.3 vs 53.0 ± 11.4 years P < .001), fewer model for end stage liver disease exceptions (34.0% vs 38.2%, P < .001), higher rates of candidate portal vein thrombosis (10.1% vs 8.5%, P < .001) and prior abdominal surgery (43.4% vs 37.4%, P < .001), and more marginal donor utilization (donor risk index 1.45 ± 0.38 vs 1.36 ± 0.33, P < .001). Mahalanobis metric matching demonstrated that compared with small centers, large centers progressively shortened recipient duration of stay per transplant in each period (A: -0.36 days, P = .437; B: -2.14 days, P < .001; C: -2.49 days, P < .001)., Conclusion: There is value in liver transplant volume. Adoption of value-based practices from large centers may allow optimization of health care delivery for this costly procedure., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) enables optimized ex-vivo preservation of a donor liver in a normal physiologic state. The impact of this emerging technology on donor liver utilization has yet to be assessed., Summary Background Data: NMP of the donor liver and ex-vivo enhancement of its function has been envisioned for decades, however only with recent technological advances have devices been suitable for transition to clinical practice. The present study examines the effect NMP on liver utilization in the United States., Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to identify deceased donor livers procured from 2016 to 2019 (n = 30596). Donor livers were divided by preservation method: standard cold-static preservation (COLD, n = 30,368) versus NMP (n = 228). Donor and recipient risk factors, liver disposition, and discard reasons were analyzed. The primary outcome was liver discard rate between 2 groups., Results: A total of 4037 livers were discarded. The NMP group had a 3.5% discard rate versus 13.3% in the COLD group (P < 0.001), and this was despite NMP donors being older (47.7 vs 39.5 years, P < 0.0001), more frequently donation after cardiac death (DCD) (18% vs 7%, P < 0.001), and having a greater donor risk index (1.6 vs 1.5, P < 0.05). The most common reasons for liver discard in the COLD group were biopsy findings (38%), DCD warm ischemic time (11%), and prolonged preservation time (10%). Survival analysis, following propensity score matching, found no significant difference in 1-year overall survival between recipients of NMP versus COLD livers., Conclusions: NMP reduces the discard rate of procured livers despite its use in donors traditionally considered of more marginal quality. NMP maintains excellent graft and patient survival. Broader application of NMP technology holds the potential to generate a significant number of additional liver grafts for transplantation every year, thus greatly reducing the nationwide disparity between supply and demand., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)