Disparities in the Use of Older Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Allografts in the United States Versus the United Kingdom.
Journal
Transplantation
ISSN: 1534-6080
Titre abrégé: Transplantation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0132144
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2022
01 08 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
29
7
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to assess the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in the characteristics and posttransplant survival of patients who received donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts from donors aged >60 y. Data were collected from the UK Transplant Registry and the United Network for Organ Sharing databases. Cohorts were dichotomized into donor age subgroups (donor >60 y [D >60]; donor ≤60 y [D ≤60]). Study period: January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015. 1157 DCD LTs were performed in the United Kingdom versus 3394 in the United States. Only 13.8% of US DCD donors were aged >50 y, contrary to 44.3% in the United Kingdom. D >60 were 22.6% in the United Kingdom versus 2.4% in the United States. In the United Kingdom, 64.2% of D >60 clustered in 2 metropolitan centers. In the United States, there was marked inter-regional variation. A total of 78.3% of the US DCD allografts were used locally. One- and 5-y unadjusted DCD graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom versus the United States (87.3% versus 81.4%, and 78.0% versus 71.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). One- and 5-y D >60 graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom (87.3% versus 68.1%, and 77.9% versus 51.4%, United Kingdom versus United States, respectively; P < 0.001). In both groups, grafts from donors ≤30 y had the best survival. Survival was similar for donors aged 41 to 50 versus 51 to 60 in both cohorts. Compared with the United Kingdom, older DCD LT utilization remained low in the United States, with worse D >60 survival. Nonetheless, present data indicate similar survivals for older donors aged ≤60, supporting an extension to the current US DCD age cutoff.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to assess the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in the characteristics and posttransplant survival of patients who received donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts from donors aged >60 y.
METHODS
Data were collected from the UK Transplant Registry and the United Network for Organ Sharing databases. Cohorts were dichotomized into donor age subgroups (donor >60 y [D >60]; donor ≤60 y [D ≤60]). Study period: January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015.
RESULTS
1157 DCD LTs were performed in the United Kingdom versus 3394 in the United States. Only 13.8% of US DCD donors were aged >50 y, contrary to 44.3% in the United Kingdom. D >60 were 22.6% in the United Kingdom versus 2.4% in the United States. In the United Kingdom, 64.2% of D >60 clustered in 2 metropolitan centers. In the United States, there was marked inter-regional variation. A total of 78.3% of the US DCD allografts were used locally. One- and 5-y unadjusted DCD graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom versus the United States (87.3% versus 81.4%, and 78.0% versus 71.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). One- and 5-y D >60 graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom (87.3% versus 68.1%, and 77.9% versus 51.4%, United Kingdom versus United States, respectively; P < 0.001). In both groups, grafts from donors ≤30 y had the best survival. Survival was similar for donors aged 41 to 50 versus 51 to 60 in both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with the United Kingdom, older DCD LT utilization remained low in the United States, with worse D >60 survival. Nonetheless, present data indicate similar survivals for older donors aged ≤60, supporting an extension to the current US DCD age cutoff.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35642976
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004185
pii: 00007890-202208000-00017
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e358-e367Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.
Références
Kim WR, Lake JR, Smith JM, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2017 Annual Data Report: Liver. Am J Transplant. 2019;19 (Suppl 2):184–283.
Haugen CE, Holscher CM, Luo X, et al. Assessment of trends in transplantation of liver grafts from older donors and outcomes in recipients of liver grafts from older donors, 2003-2016. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:441–449.
Washburn K, Pomfret E, Roberts J. Liver allocation and distribution: possible next steps. Liver Transpl. 2011;17:1005–1012.
Halazun KJ, Quillin RC, Rosenblatt R, et al. Expanding the margins: high volume utilization of marginal liver grafts among >2000 liver transplants at a single institution. Ann Surg. 2017;266:441–449.
Foley DP, Fernandez LA, Leverson G, et al. Donation after cardiac death: the University of Wisconsin experience with liver transplantation. Ann Surg. 2005;242:724–731.
Mateo R, Cho Y, Singh G, et al. Risk factors for graft survival after liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: an analysis of OPTN/UNOS data. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:791–796.
de Vera ME, Lopez-Solis R, Dvorchik I, et al. Liver transplantation using donation after cardiac death donors: long-term follow-up from a single center. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:773–781.
Croome KP, Lee DD, Keaveny AP, et al. Improving national results in liver transplantation using grafts from donation after cardiac death donors. Transplantation. 2016;100:2640–2647.
Wallace D, Cowling TE, Suddle A, et al. National time trends in mortality and graft survival following liver transplantation from circulatory death or brainstem death donors. Br J Surg. 2021;109:79–88.
University of California Berkeley. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010. Available at: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2009/compendia/statab/129ed.html .
Giorgakis E, Khorsandi SE, Mathur AK, et al. Comparable graft survival is achievable with the usage of donation after circulatory death liver grafts from donors at or above 70 years of age: a long-term UK national analysis. Am J Transplant. 2021;21:2200–2210.
Dasari BVM, Schlegel A, Mergental H, et al. The use of old donors in liver transplantation. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;31:211–217.
Durand F, Levitsky J, Cauchy F, et al. Age and liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2019;70:745–758.
Croome KP, Muiesan P, Taner CB. Donation After Circulatory Death (DCD) Liver Transplantation. 1st ed. Springer Nature Switzerland; 2020.
Schlegel A, Dutkowski P. Impact of machine perfusion on biliary complications after liver transplantation. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:E3567.
Schlegel A, Kalisvaart M, Isaac J, et al. Reply to: “DCD consensus and futility in liver transplantation”. J Hepatol. 2018;69:257–258.
Croome KP, Mathur AK, Lee DD, et al. Outcomes of donation after circulatory death liver grafts from donors 50 years or older: a multicenter analysis. Transplantation. 2018;102:1108–1114.
Foley DP, Fernandez LA, Leverson G, et al. Biliary complications after liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: an analysis of risk factors and long-term outcomes from a single center. Ann Surg. 2011;253:817–825.
Cascales-Campos PA, Ferreras D, Alconchel F, et al. Controlled donation after circulatory death up to 80 years for liver transplantation: pushing the limit again. Am J Transplant. 2020;20:204–212.
Laing RW, Scalera I, Isaac J, et al. Liver transplantation using grafts from donors after circulatory death: a propensity score-matched study from a single center. Am J Transplant. 2016;16:1795–1804.
Schlegel A, Scalera I, Perera MTPR, et al. Impact of donor age in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: Is the cutoff “60” still of relevance? Liver Transpl. 2018;24:352–362.
Schlegel A, Kalisvaart M, Scalera I, et al. The UK DCD risk score: a new proposal to define futility in donation-after-circulatory-death liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2018;68:456–464.
Schlegel A, Kalisvaart M, Isaac J, et al. Reply to: “Redefining futility in DCD liver transplantation in the era of novel perfusion technologies”. J Hepatol. 2018;68:1328–1330.
Ivanics T, Wallace D, Abreu P, et al. Survival after liver transplantation: an international comparison between the United States and the United Kingdom in the years 2008–2016. Transplantation. 2022;106:1390-1400.
NHS Blood and Transplant Organ Specific Reports: 2018-2019. Available at: https://www.odt.nhs.uk/statistics-and-reports/organ-specific-reports/ . Accessed on February 11, 2020.
Available at: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. About the OPTN. Available at: https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/about-the-optn/ . Accessed April 16, 2019.
The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Health Resources and Services Administration. Available at: https://srtr.transplant.hrsa.gov . Accessed April 16, 2019.
Collett D, Friend PJ, Watson CJ. Factors Associated with short- and long-term liver graft survival in the United Kingdom: development of a UK donor liver index. Transplantation. 2017;101:786–792.
Thuong M, Ruiz A, Evrard P, et al. New classification of donation after circulatory death donors definitions and terminology. Transpl Int. 2016;29:749–759.
Giorgakis E, Khorsandi SE, Jassem W, et al. DCD consensus and futility in liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2018;69:255–256.
Neuberger J, Gimson A, Davies M, et al.; Liver Advisory Group; UK Blood and Transplant. Selection of patients for liver transplantation and allocation of donated livers in the UK. Gut. 2008;57:252–257.
Feng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg-Gresham JL, et al. Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:783–790.
Kruskal W, Wallis A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;47:583–621.
Siegel C. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. McGraw–Hill; 1988.
Dodge Y The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics. 1st ed. Springer; 2009.
Melcher M. UK DCD risk calculator.
Schooling CM, Jones HE. Clarifying questions about “risk factors”: predictors versus explanation. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2018;15:10.
Office for Human Research Protections. Human Subject Regulations Decision Charts. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts/index.html . Accessed November 10, 2021.
Mathur AK, Heimbach J, Steffick DE, et al. Donation after cardiac death liver transplantation: predictors of outcome. Am J Transplant. 2010;10:2512–2519.
Montgomery JR, Highet A, Hobeika MJ, et al. Going the distance for procurement of donation after circulatory death livers for transplantation—Does reimbursement reflect reality? Clin Transplant. 2020;34:e13780.
Giorgakis E, Burdine L, Khorsandi S, et al. Impact of center volume on donation after circulatory death liver transplant outcomes. A retrospective scientific registry of transplant recipients analysis. Conference abstract. Transplantation. 2019;103:30–30.
NHS Blood and Transplant. National Protocols, Policies and Reports. Available at: https://www.odt.nhs.uk/retrieval/policies-and-nors-reports/ . Accessed April 13, 2022.
Hobeika MJ, Glazner R, Foley DP, et al. A step toward standardization: results of two national surveys of best practices in donation after circulatory death liver recovery and recommendations from The American Society of Transplant Surgeons and Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Clin Transplant. 2020;34:e14035.
Vagefi PA, Bertsimas D, Hirose R, et al. The rise and fall of the model for end-stage liver disease score and the need for an optimized machine learning approach for liver allocation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2020;25:122–125.
Halazun KJ, Mathur AK, Rana AA, et al. One size does not fit all–regional variation in the impact of the share 35 liver allocation policy. Am J Transplant. 2016;16:137–142.
Haugen CE, Ishaque T, Sapirstein A, et al. Geographic disparities in liver supply/demand ratio within fixed-distance and fixed-population circles. Am J Transplant. 2019;19:2044–2052.
Ivanics T, Vianna R, Kubal CA, et al. Impact of the acuity circle model for liver allocation on multivisceral transplant candidates. Am J Transplant. 2022;22:464–473.
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Acuity Circles Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/3612/acuity-circles-faq.pdf . Accessed November 14, 2021.
Khorsandi SE, Giorgakis E, Vilca-Melendez H, et al. Developing a donation after cardiac death risk index for adult and pediatric liver transplantation. World J Transplant. 2017;7:203–212.
Farid SG, Attia MS, Vijayanand D, et al. Impact of donor hepatectomy time during orgn procurement in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: the United Kingdom experience. Transplantation. 2019;103:e79–e88.
Jochmans I, Fieuws S, Tieken I, et al. The impact of hepatectomy time of the liver graft on post-transplant outcome: a eurotransplant cohort study. Ann Surg. 2019;269:712–717.
Boteon APCS, Schlegel A, Kalisvaart M, et al. Retrieval practice or overall donor and recipient risk: what impacts on outcomes after donation after circulatory death liver transplantation in the United Kingdom? Liver Transpl. 2019;25:545–558.
Dawwas MF, Gimson AE, Lewsey JD, et al. Survival after liver transplantation in the United Kingdom and Ireland compared with the United States. Gut. 2007;56:1606–1613.
Gallagher AM, Dedman D, Padmanabhan S, et al. The accuracy of date of death recording in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database in England compared with the Office for National Statistics death registrations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019;28:563–569.
Monbaliu D, Pirenne J, Talbot D. Liver transplantation using donation after cardiac death donors. J Hepatol. 2012;56:474–485.
Dutkowski P, Polak WG, Muiesan P, et al. First comparison of hypothermic oxygenated perfusion versus static cold storage of human donation after cardiac death liver transplants: an international-matched case analysis. Ann Surg. 2015;262:764–770.
Schlegel A, Muller X, Kalisvaart M, et al. Outcomes of DCD liver transplantation using organs treated by hypothermic oxygenated perfusion before implantation. J Hepatol. 2019;70:50–57.
Sutherland AI, Oniscu GC. Challenges and advances in optimizing liver allografts from donation after circulatory death donors. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2016;7:10–15.
Weissenbacher A, Vrakas G, Nasralla D, et al. The future of organ perfusion and re-conditioning. Transpl Int. 2019;32:586–597.
Nasralla D, Coussios CC, Mergental H, et al.; Consortium for Organ Preservation in Europe. A randomized trial of normothermic preservation in liver transplantation. Nature. 2018;557:50–56.