Organ Procurement Organization Survey of Practices and Beliefs Regarding Prerecovery Percutaneous Liver Biopsy in Donation After Neurologic Determination of Death.

BACKGROUND: Prerecovery liver biopsy (PLB) allows histological evaluation of the organ before procurement. The opinions and what factors might influence PLB use within Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) are unknown. METHODS: A survey instrument was distributed by the Association of OPOs to the clinical directors of all 58 OPOs. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results were also stratified based on OPO characteristics. RESULTS: Forty-nine (84.5%) of 58 OPOs responded to the survey; 40 (81.6%) of 49 currently perform PLB. This did not vary based on land mass, population, livers discarded, transplanted, donor age, or recipient MELD scores. Donor age, obesity, alcohol abuse, hepatitis serology, liver only donor, imaging results, and transplant center request were the most common indications for PLB in over 80% of OPOs. The median rate of performance is 5% to 10% of donors. Most use interventional radiologists to perform and the donor hospital pathologist/s to interpret PLB. Most OPOs believe PLBs are safe, reliable, useful, and performed often enough. Most say they did not believe they are easy to obtain. Beliefs were mixed regarding accuracy. The topics likely to influence PLB use were utility and accuracy of PLB, and availability of staff to perform PLB. OPOs that perform PLB more often were more likely to have favorable opinions of safety and pathologist availability, and more influenced by safety, reliability, availability, and a national consensus on the use of PLB. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability exists in the use of PLB. Additional information on the utility, accuracy, and safety of PLB are needed to optimize its use.

Prerecovery liver biopsy in the brain-dead donor: a case-control study of logistics, safety, precision, and utility.

Prerecovery liver biopsy (PLB) can potentially to decrease futile recovery and increase utilization of marginal brain-dead donor (BDD) livers. A case-control study was conducted to examine the logistics, safety, histological precision, and liver utilization associated with PLB in BDDs. Twenty-three cases between January 2008 and January 2013 were compared to 2 groups: 48 sequential and 69 clinically matched controls. Compared to the sequential controls, the cases were older (53 versus 46 years), heavier (30.2 versus 25.8 kg/m2), had higher prevalences of hypertension (78.3% versus 44.7%) and alcohol use (56.5% versus 23.4%), and a lower United Network for Organ Sharing expected organ yield (0.73 versus 0.81 livers/donor; P < 0.05 for all). Baseline characteristics were similar between cases and clinical controls. Donor management time was longer for the cases (22.4 hours) versus sequential controls (16.5 hours, P = 0.01) and clinical controls (15.9 hours, P = 0.01). Complications for cases (8.7%) were not different from either group of controls (18.8% for sequential controls, P = 0.46; 17.4% for clinical controls, P = 0.50). The agreement between the donor hospital and study pathologists was substantial regarding evaluation of steatosis (κ = 0.623) and fibrosis (κ = 0.627) and moderate regarding inflammation (κ = 0.495). The proportions of livers that were transplanted were similar for the cases and the clinical controls (60.9% versus 59.4%). In contrast, the proportion of donors for whom liver recovery was not attempted was higher (30.4% versus 8.7%), and the proportion of attempted liver recoveries that did not result in transplantation was lower (8.7% versus 31.9%). These differences were significant at P = 0.009. Overall, PLB is logistically feasible with only a minimal delay and is safe, its interpretation at donor hospitals is reproducible, and it appears to decrease futile liver recovery.