Randomized Trial of Ciclosporin with 2-h Monitoring vs. Tacrolimus with Trough Monitoring in Liver Transplantation: DELTA Study.

Background and Aims: Previous trials comparing cyclosporine and tacrolimus after liver transplantation (LT) showed conflicting results. Most used trough monitoring for cyclosporine (C0), leading to less accurate dosing than with 2-h monitoring (C2). Only one larger trial compared C2 with tacrolimus based on trough level (T0) after LT, with similar treated biopsy-proven acute rejection (tBPAR) and graft loss, while a smaller trial had less tBPAR with C2 compared to T0. Therefore, it is still unclear which calcineurin inhibitor is preferred after LT. We aimed to demonstrate superior efficacy (tBPAR), tolerability, and safety of C2 or T0 after first LT. Methods: Patients after first LT were randomized to C2 or T0. tBPAR, patient- and graft survival, safety and tolerability were the main endpoints, with analysis by Fisher test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank test. Results: In intention-to-treat analysis 84 patients on C2 and 85 on T0 were included. Cumulative incidence of tBPAR C2 vs. T0 was 17.7% vs. 8.4% at 3 months (p=0.104), and 21.9% vs. 9.7% at 6 and 12 months (p=0.049). One-year cumulative mortality C2 vs. T0 was 15.5% vs. 5.9% (p=0.049) and graft loss 23.8% vs. 9.4% (p=0.015). Serum triglyceride and LDL-cholesterol was lower with T0 than with C2. Incidence of diarrhea in T0 vs, C2 was 64% vs. 31% (p≤0.001), with no other differences in safety and tolerability. Conclusions: In the first year after LT immunosuppression with T0 leads to less tBPAR and better patient-/re-transplant-free survival as compared to C2.

Epstein-Barr Viral Load Monitoring Strategy and the Risk for Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disease in Adult Liver Transplantation : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary infection with or reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) can occur after liver transplant (LT) and can lead to posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD). In pediatric LT, an EBV-DNA viral load (EBV VL) monitoring strategy, including the reduction of immunosuppression, has led to a lower incidence of PTLD. For adult LT recipients with less primary infection and more EBV reactivation, it is unknown whether this strategy is effective. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of an EBV VL monitoring strategy on the incidence of PTLD after LT in adults. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Two university medical centers in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Adult recipients of first LT in Leiden between September 2003 and January 2017 with an EBV VL monitoring strategy formed the monitoring group (M1), recipients of first LT in Rotterdam between January 2003 and January 2017 without such a strategy formed the contemporary control group (C1), and those who had transplants in Leiden between September 1992 and September 2003 or Rotterdam between 1986 and January 2003 formed the historical control groups (M0 and C0, respectively). MEASUREMENTS: Influence of EBV VL monitoring on incidence of PTLD. RESULTS: After inverse probability of treatment weighting of the 4 groups to achieve a balance among the groups for important patient characteristics, differences within hospitals between the historical and recent era in cumulative incidences-expressed as the number of events per 1000 patients measured at 5-, 10-, and 15-year follow-up-showed fewer events in the contemporary era in both centers. This difference was considerably larger in the monitoring center, whereas the 95% CI included the null value of 0 for point estimates. LIMITATION: Retrospective, low statistical power, and incompletely balanced groups, and non-EBV PTLD cannot be prevented. CONCLUSION: Monitoring EBV VL may reduce PTLD incidence after LT in adults; larger studies are warranted. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Novel Benchmark Values for Redo Liver Transplantation: Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?

OBJECTIVE: To define benchmark cutoffs for redo liver transplantation (redo-LT). BACKGROUND: In the era of organ shortage, redo-LT is frequently discussed in terms of expected poor outcome and wasteful resources. However, there is a lack of benchmark data to reliably evaluate outcomes after redo-LT. METHODS: We collected data on redo-LT between January 2010 and December 2018 from 22 high-volume transplant centers. Benchmark cases were defined as recipients with model of end stage liver disease (MELD) score ≤25, absence of portal vein thrombosis, no mechanical ventilation at the time of surgery, receiving a graft from a donor after brain death. Also, high-urgent priority and early redo-LT including those for primary nonfunction (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis were excluded. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of the medians of all benchmark centers. RESULTS: Of 1110 redo-LT, 373 (34%) cases qualified as benchmark cases. Among these cases, the rate of postoperative complications until discharge was 76%, and increased up to 87% at 1-year, respectively. One-year overall survival rate was excellent with 90%. Benchmark cutoffs included Comprehensive Complication Index CCI ® at 1-year of ≤72, and in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates of ≤13% and ≤15%, respectively. In contrast, patients who received a redo-LT for PNF showed worse outcomes with some values dramatically outside the redo-LT benchmarks. CONCLUSION: This study shows that redo-LT achieves good outcome when looking at benchmark scenarios. However, this figure changes in high-risk redo-LT, as for example in PNF. This analysis objectifies for the first-time results and efforts for redo-LT and can serve as a basis for discussion about the use of scarce resources.

A multicentre outcome analysis to define global benchmarks for donation after circulatory death liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The concept of benchmarking is established in the field of transplant surgery; however, benchmark values for donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation are not available. Thus, we aimed to identify the best possible outcomes in DCD liver transplantation and to propose outcome reference values. METHODS: Based on 2,219 controlled DCD liver transplantations, collected from 17 centres in North America and Europe, we identified 1,012 low-risk, primary, adult liver transplantations with a laboratory MELD score of ≤20 points, receiving a DCD liver with a total donor warm ischemia time of ≤30 minutes and asystolic donor warm ischemia time of ≤15 minutes. Clinically relevant outcomes were selected and complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo-Grading and the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Corresponding benchmark cut-offs were based on median values of each centre, where the 75th-percentile was considered. RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented between 19.7% and 75% of DCD transplantations in participating centres. The 1-year retransplant and mortality rates were 4.5% and 8.4% in the benchmark group, respectively. Within the first year of follow-up, 51.1% of recipients developed at least 1 major complication (≥Clavien-Dindo-Grade III). Benchmark cut-offs were ≤3 days and ≤16 days for ICU and hospital stay, ≤66% for severe recipient complications (≥Grade III), ≤16.8% for ischemic cholangiopathy, and ≤38.9 CCI points 1 year after transplant. Comparisons with higher risk groups showed more complications and impaired graft survival outside the benchmark cut-offs. Organ perfusion techniques reduced the complications to values below benchmark cut-offs, despite higher graft risk. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high. Benchmark cut-offs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess the protective value of new preservation technologies in higher risk groups and to provide a valid comparator cohort for future clinical trials. LAY SUMMARY: The best possible outcomes after liver transplantation of grafts donated after circulatory death (DCD) were defined using the concept of benchmarking. These were based on 2,219 liver transplantations following controlled DCD donation in 17 centres worldwide. Donor and recipient combinations with higher risk had significantly worse outcomes. However, the use of novel organ perfusion technology helped high-risk patients achieve similar outcomes as the benchmark cohort.

Donor diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for diminished outcome after liver transplantation: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.

With the growing incidence of diabetes mellitus (DM), an increasing number of organ donors with DM can be expected. We sought to investigate the association between donor DM with early post-transplant outcomes. From a national cohort of adult liver transplant recipients (1996-2016), all recipients transplanted with a liver from a DM donor (n = 69) were matched 1:2 with recipients of livers from non-DM donors (n = 138). The primary end-point included early post-transplant outcome, such as the incidence of primary nonfunction (PNF), hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT), and 90-day graft survival. Cox regression analysis was used to analyze the impact of donor DM on graft failure. PNF was observed in 5.8% of grafts from DM donors versus 2.9% of non-DM donor grafts (P = 0.31). Recipients of grafts derived from DM donors had a higher incidence of HAT (8.7% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.03) and decreased 90-day graft survival (88.4% [70.9-91.1] vs. 96.4% [89.6-97.8], P = 0.03) compared to recipients of grafts from non-DM donors. The adjusted hazard ratio for donor DM on graft survival was 2.21 (1.08-4.53, P = 0.03). In conclusion, donor DM is associated with diminished outcome early after liver transplantation. The increased incidence of HAT after transplantation of livers from DM donors requires further research.

Evaluation of Liver Graft Donation After Euthanasia.

Importance: The option of donating organs after euthanasia is not well known. Assessment of the results of organ transplants with grafts donated after euthanasia is essential to justify the use of this type of organ donation. Objectives: To assess the outcomes of liver transplants (LTs) with grafts donated after euthanasia (donation after circulatory death type V [DCD-V]), and to compare them with the results of the more commonly performed LTs with grafts from donors with a circulatory arrest after the withdrawal of life-supporting treatment (type III [DCD-III]). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective multicenter cohort study analyzed medical records and LT data for most transplant centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. All LTs with DCD-V grafts performed from the start of the donation after euthanasia program (September 2012 for the Netherlands, and January 2005 for Belgium) through July 1, 2018, were included in the analysis. A comparative cohort of patients who received DCD-III grafts was also analyzed. All patients in both cohorts were followed up for at least 1 year. Data analysis was performed from September 2019 to December 2019. Exposures: Liver transplant with either a DCD-V graft or DCD-III graft. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were recipient and graft survival rates at years 1, 3, and 5 after the LT. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications (early allograft dysfunction, hepatic artery thrombosis, and nonanastomotic biliary strictures) within the first year after the LT. Results: Among the cohort of 47 LTs with DCD-V grafts, 25 organ donors (53%) were women and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 51 (44-59) years. Among the cohort of 542 LTs with DCD-III grafts, 335 organ donors (62%) were men and the median (IQR) age was 49 (37-57) years. Median (IQR) follow-up was 3.8 (2.1-6.3) years. In the DCD-V cohort, 30 recipients (64%) were men, and the median (IQR) age was 56 (48-64) years. Recipient survival in the DCD-V cohort was 87% at 1 year, 73% at 3 years, and 66% at 5 years after LT. Graft survival among recipients was 74% at 1 year, 61% at 3 years, and 57% at 5 years after LT. These survival rates did not differ statistically significantly from those in the DCD-III cohort. Incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the groups. For example, the occurrence of early allograft dysfunction after the LT was found to be 13 (31%) in the DCD-V cohort and 219 (45%) in the DCD-III cohort. The occurrence of nonanastomotic biliary strictures after the LT was found to be 7 (15%) in the DCD-V cohort and 83 (15%) in the DCD-III cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that LTs with DCD-V grafts yield similar outcomes as LTs with DCD-III grafts; therefore, grafts donated after euthanasia may be a justifiable option for increasing the organ donor pool. However, grafts from these donations should be considered high-risk grafts that require an optimal donor selection process and logistics.

Donor hepatectomy time influences ischemia-reperfusion injury of the biliary tree in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Donor hepatectomy time is associated with graft survival after liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to identify the impact of donor hepatectomy time on biliary injury during donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. METHODS: First, bile duct biopsies of livers included in (pre)clinical machine perfusion research were analyzed. Secondly, of the same livers, bile samples were collected during normothermic machine perfusion. Lastly, a nationwide retrospective cohort study was performed including 273 adult patients undergoing donation after circulatory death liver transplantation between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2017. Primary endpoint was development of non-anastomotic biliary strictures within 2 years of donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses were used to assess the influence of hepatectomy time on the development of non-anastomotic biliary strictures. RESULTS: Livers with severe histological bile duct injury had a higher median hepatectomy time (P = .03). During normothermic machine perfusion, livers with a hepatectomy time >50 minutes had lower biliary bicarbonate and bile pH levels. In the nationwide retrospective study, donor hepatectomy time was an independent risk factor for non-anastomotic biliary strictures after donation after circulatory death liver transplantation (Hazard Ratio 1.18 per 10 minutes increase, 95% Confidence Interval 1.06-1.30, P value = .002). CONCLUSION: Donor hepatectomy time negatively influences histological bile duct injury before normothermic machine perfusion and bile composition during normothermic machine perfusion. Additionally, hepatectomy time is a significant independent risk factor for the development of non-anastomotic biliary strictures after donation after circulatory death liver transplantation.

Selected liver grafts from donation after circulatory death can be safely used for retransplantation - a multicenter retrospective study.

Due to the growing number of liver transplantations (LTs), there is an increasing number of patients requiring retransplantation (reLT). Data on the use of grafts from extended criteria donors (ECD), especially donation after circulatory death (DCD), for reLT are lacking. We aimed to assess the outcome of patients undergoing reLT using a DCD graft in the Netherlands between 2001 and July 2018. Propensity score matching was used to match each DCD-reLT with three DBD-reLT cases. Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival. Secondary outcome was the incidence of biliary complications, especially nonanastomotic strictures (NAS). 21 DCD-reLT were compared with 63 matched DBD-reLTs. Donors in the DCD-reLT group had a significantly lower BMI (22.4 vs. 24.7 kg/m2 , P-value = 0.02). Comparison of recipient demographics and ischemia times yielded no significant differences. Patient and graft survival rates were comparable between the two groups. However, the occurrence of nonanastomotic strictures after DCD-reLT was significantly higher (38.1% vs. 12.7%, P-value = 0.02). ReLT with DCD grafts does not result in inferior patient and graft survival compared with DBD grafts in selected patients. Therefore, DCD liver grafts should not routinely be declined for patients awaiting reLT.

Policies towards donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: the need for a guideline?

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) using grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is evolving to standard of care in many countries. Various transplant centers have developed a protocol for DCD-LT. The existence of numerous protocols may cause inconsistencies. Knowledge of these differences may help improve the outcome of DCD-LT. METHODS: An internet-based survey was sent to 119 transplant surgeons among four countries: Belgium (BE), the Netherlands (NL), Spain (ES) and the United Kingdom (UK). RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of all respondents indicated having no specific age limit for DCD-LT donors, and if there was a limit, half of them ignored it. Calculation of donor warm ischemia time (dWIT) varied substantially between countries. In ES and the UK, the starting point of dWIT was defined as deterioration of saturation/blood pressure, while in NL, cardiac arrest was used as starting point. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents used a super-rapid sterno-laparotomy as procurement technique. Surgeons from NL and BE mainly used aortic perfusion (95% and 72%), while dual perfusion was more common in the UK (90%) and ES (91%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates major differences in approach to DCD-LT. To assure both donors and recipients a consistent standard of care, a consensus meeting on DCD-LT is highly recommended.

Defining Benchmarks in Liver Transplantation: A Multicenter Outcome Analysis Determining Best Achievable Results.

: This multicentric study of 17 high-volume centers presents 12 benchmark values for liver transplantation. Those values, mostly targeting markers of morbidity, were gathered from 2024 "low risk" cases, and may serve as reference to assess outcome of single or any groups of patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose benchmark outcome values in liver transplantation, serving as reference for assessing individual patients or any other patient groups. BACKGROUND: Best achievable results in liver transplantation, that is, benchmarks, are unknown. Consequently, outcome comparisons within or across centers over time remain speculative. METHODS: Out of 7492 liver transplantation performed in 17 international centers from 3 continents, we identified 2024 low risk adult cases with a laboratory model for end-stage liver disease score ≤20 points, a balance of risk score ≤9, and receiving a primary graft by donation after brain death. We chose clinically relevant endpoints covering intra- and postoperative course, with a focus on complications graded by severity including the complication comprehensive index (CCI). Respective benchmarks were derived from the median value in each center, and the 75 percentile was considered the benchmark cutoff. RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented 8% to 49% of cases per center. One-year patient-survival was 91.6% with 3.5% retransplantations. Eighty-two percent of patients developed at least 1 complication during 1-year follow-up. Biliary complications occurred in one-fifth of the patients up to 6 months after surgery. Benchmark cutoffs were ≤4 days for ICU stay, ≤18 days for hospital stay, ≤59% for patients with severe complications (≥ Grade III) and ≤42.1 for 1-year CCI. Comparisons with the next higher risk group (model for end stage liver disease 21-30) disclosed an increase in morbidity but within benchmark cutoffs for most, but not all indicators, while in patients receiving a second graft from 1 center (n = 50) outcome values were all outside of benchmark values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high with half of patients developing severe complications during 1-year follow-up. Benchmark cutoffs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess higher risk groups.