Development of a model to predict the risk of early graft failure after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: An ELTR study.

Graft survival is a critical end point in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT), where graft procurement endangers the lives of healthy individuals. Therefore, ALDLT must be responsibly performed in the perspective of a positive harm-to-benefit ratio. This study aimed to develop a risk prediction model for early (3 months) graft failure (EGF) following ALDLT. Donor and recipient factors associated with EGF in ALDLT were studied using data from the European Liver Transplant Registry. An artificial neural network classification algorithm was trained on a set of 2073 ALDLTs, validated using cross-validation, tested on an independent random-split sample (n=518), and externally validated on United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research data. Model performance was assessed using the AUC, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Graft type, graft weight, level of hospitalization, and the severity of liver disease were associated with EGF. The model ( http://ldlt.shinyapps.io/eltr_app ) presented AUC values at cross-validation, in the independent test set, and at external validation of 0.69, 0.70, and 0.68, respectively. Model calibration was fair. The decision curve analysis indicated a positive net benefit of the model, with an estimated net reduction of 5-15 EGF per 100 ALDLTs. Estimated risks>40% and<5% had a specificity of 0.96 and sensitivity of 0.99 in predicting and excluding EGF, respectively. The model also stratified long-term graft survival ( p <0.001), which ranged from 87% in the low-risk group to 60% in the high-risk group. In conclusion, based on a panel of donor and recipient variables, an artificial neural network can contribute to decision-making in ALDLT by predicting EGF risk.

Global impact of the first wave of COVID-19 on liver transplant centers: A multi-society survey (EASL-ESOT/ELITA-ILTS).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The global impact of SARS-CoV-2 on liver transplantation (LT) practices across the world is unknown. The goal of this survey was to assess the impact of the pandemic on global LT practices. METHOD: A prospective web-based survey (available online from 7th September 2020 to 31st December 2020) was proposed to the active members of the EASL-ESOT/ELITA-ILTS in the Americas (including North, Central, and South America) (R1), Europe (R2), and the rest of the world (R3). The survey comprised 4 parts concerning transplant processes, therapy, living donors, and organ procurement. RESULTS: Of the 470 transplant centers reached, 128 answered each part of the survey, 29 centers (23%), 64 centers (50%), and 35 centers (27%) from R1, R2, and R3, respectively. When we compared the practices during the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020 with those a year earlier in 2019, statistically significant differences were found in the number of patients added to the waiting list (WL), WL mortality, and the number of LTs performed. At the regional level, we found that in R2 the number of LTs was significantly higher in 2019 (p <0.01), while R3 had more patients listed, higher WL mortality, and more LTs performed before the pandemic. Countries severely affected by the pandemic ("hit" countries) had a lower number of WL patients (p = 0.009) and LTs (p = 0.002) during the pandemic. Interestingly, WL mortality was still higher in the "non-hit" countries in 2020 compared to 2019 (p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: The first wave of the pandemic differentially impacted LT practices across the world, especially with detrimental effects on the "hit" countries. Modifications to the policies of recipient and donor selection, organ retrieval, and postoperative recipient management were adopted at a regional or national level. LAY SUMMARY: The health emergency caused by the coronavirus pandemic has dramatically changed clinical practice during the pandemic. The first wave of the pandemic impacted liver transplantation differently across the world, with particularly detrimental effects on the countries badly hit by the virus. The resilience of the entire transplant network has enabled continued organ donation and transplantation, ultimately improving the lives of patients with end-stage liver disease.

Recurrence of primary sclerosing cholangitis after liver transplantation - analysing the European Liver Transplant Registry and beyond.

Liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) can be complicated by recurrence of PSC (rPSC). This may compromise graft survival but the effect on patient survival is less clear. We investigated the effect of post-transplant rPSC on graft and patient survival in a large European cohort. Registry data from the European Liver Transplant Registry regarding all first transplants for PSC between 1980 and 2015 were supplemented with detailed data on rPSC from 48 out of 138 contributing transplant centres, involving 1,549 patients. Bayesian proportional hazards models were used to investigate the impact of rPSC and other covariates on patient and graft survival. Recurrence of PSC was diagnosed in 259 patients (16.7%) after a median follow-up of 5.0 years (quantile 2.5%-97.5%: 0.4-18.5), with a significant negative impact on both graft (HR 6.7; 95% CI 4.9-9.1) and patient survival (HR 2.3; 95% CI 1.5-3.3). Patients with rPSC underwent significantly more re-transplants than those without rPSC (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.7-4.8). PSC recurrence has a negative impact on both graft and patient survival, independent of transplant-related covariates. Recurrence of PSC leads to higher number of re-transplantations and a 33% decrease in 10-year graft survival.

A model including sarcopenia surpasses the MELD score in predicting waiting list mortality in cirrhotic liver transplant candidates: A competing risk analysis in a national cohort.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Frail patients with low model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores may be under-prioritised. Low skeletal muscle mass, namely sarcopenia, has been identified as a risk factor for waiting list mortality. A recent study proposed incorporating sarcopenia in the MELD score (MELD-Sarcopenia score). We aimed to investigate the association between sarcopenia and waiting list mortality, and to validate the MELD-Sarcopenia score (i.e. MELD + 10.35 * Sarcopenia). METHODS: We identified consecutive patients with cirrhosis listed for liver transplantation in the Eurotransplant registry between 2007-2014 and measured skeletal muscle mass on computed tomography. A competing risk analysis was used to compare survival of patients with and without sarcopenia, and concordance (c) indices were calculated to assess performance of the MELD and MELD-Sarcopenia score. We created a nomogram of the best predictive model. RESULTS: We included 585 patients with a median MELD score of 14 (interquartile range 9-19), of which 254 (43.4%) were identified as having sarcopenia. Median waiting list survival was shorter in patients with sarcopenia than those without (p <0.001). This effect was even more pronounced in patients with MELD ≤15. The discriminative performance of the MELD-Sarcopenia score (c-index 0.820) for three-month mortality was lower than MELD score alone (c-index 0.839). Apart from sarcopenia and MELD score, other predictive variables were occurrence of hepatic encephalopathy before listing and recipient age. A model including all these variables yielded a c-index of 0.851. CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopenia was associated with waiting list mortality in liver transplant candidates with cirrhosis, particularly in patients with lower MELD scores. The MELD-Sarcopenia score was successfully validated in this cohort. However, incorporating sarcopenia in the MELD score had limited added value in predicting waiting list mortality. LAY SUMMARY: In this study among patients with liver cirrhosis listed for liver transplantation, low skeletal muscle mass was associated with mortality on the waiting list, particularly in patients who were listed with low priority based on a low MELD score. However, adding these measurements to the currently used system for donor and organ allocation showed no added value.