ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare conventional low-temperature storage of transplant donor livers [static cold storage (SCS)] with storage of the organs at physiological body temperature [normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)]. BACKGROUND: The high success rate of liver transplantation is constrained by the shortage of transplantable organs (eg, waiting list mortality >20% in many centers). NMP maintains the liver in a functioning state to improve preservation quality and enable testing of the organ before transplantation. This is of greatest potential value with organs from brain-dead donor organs (DBD) with risk factors (age and comorbidities), and those from donors declared dead by cardiovascular criteria (donation after circulatory death). METHODS: Three hundred eighty-three donor organs were randomized by 15 US liver transplant centers to undergo NMP (n = 192) or SCS (n = 191). Two hundred sixty-six donor livers proceeded to transplantation (NMP: n = 136; SCS: n = 130). The primary endpoint of the study was "early allograft dysfunction" (EAD), a marker of early posttransplant liver injury and function. RESULTS: The difference in the incidence of EAD did not achieve significance, with 20.6% (NMP) versus 23.7% (SCS). Using exploratory, "as-treated" rather than "intent-to-treat," subgroup analyses, there was a greater effect size in donation after circulatory death donor livers (22.8% NMP vs 44.6% SCS) and in organs in the highest risk quartile by donor risk (19.2% NMP vs 33.3% SCS). The incidence of acute cardiovascular decompensation at organ reperfusion, "postreperfusion syndrome," as a secondary outcome was reduced in the NMP arm (5.9% vs 14.6%). CONCLUSIONS: NMP did not lower EAD, perhaps related to the inclusion of lower-risk liver donors, as higher-risk donor livers seemed to benefit more. The technology is safe in standard organ recovery and seems to have the greatest benefit for marginal donors.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) levels are often obtained in potential pancreas graft donors to assess the overall long-term functional glycemic control or the possibility of unrecognized diabetes. Although routinely measured, the impact of donor HbA1c levels on pancreas graft outcomes has not been reported. Here, we researched the relationship between donor HbA1c levels and postoperative pancreas graft survival. METHODS: Data from 266 pancreas transplant patients including 182 simultaneous kidney-pancreas and 84 pancreas alone transplants were reviewed for the study. The patients were separated into groups according to their HbA1c levels (5 groups: HbA1c < 5.0, 5.0-5.4, 5.5-5.9, ≥6.0 % and not available, or 2 groups: HbA1c <5.7, ≥5.7%). Overall, death-censored and technically successful pancreas graft survival and rejection rates of each group were compared. In the case of technically successful graft survival, graft losses due to technical problems in the first 60 days were excluded. RESULTS: All groups were similar with regard to donor variables including age, sex, ABO blood type, ethnicity, donor type and recipient variables including recipient age, sex, induction agents and maintenance treatment. Mean follow-up time was 4.2 ± 1.97 years. The overall graft survivals and death censored graft survivals among groups were not statistically different from one other (P > 0.05). Additionally, excluding early technical losses in 18 patients did not reveal any differences in graft survivals. Patient survival and biopsy-proven acute rejections were statistically similar among HbA1c strata. CONCLUSIONS: This univariate retrospective analysis of a single center/organ procurement organization use of HbA1c shows that donor HbA1c levels between 3.5 and 6.2 in otherwise transplantable pancreata are not associated with different short-term outcomes.
