Outcomes after liver transplantation using deceased after circulatory death donors: A comparison of outcomes in the UK and the US.
NHSBT
UNOS
liver transplant
outcomes
Journal
Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver
ISSN: 1478-3231
Titre abrégé: Liver Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101160857
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
revised:
08
01
2023
received:
16
06
2022
accepted:
23
01
2023
medline:
17
5
2023
pubmed:
5
2
2023
entrez:
4
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Identifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population-level insight. Adult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time-dependent Cox-regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk-adjusted short-term (0-90 days) and longer-term (90 days-5 years) outcomes. One-thousand five-hundred-and-sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk-adjusted short-term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer-term (90 days-5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001). For those receiving a DCD LT, longer-term post-transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Identifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population-level insight.
METHODS
Adult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time-dependent Cox-regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk-adjusted short-term (0-90 days) and longer-term (90 days-5 years) outcomes.
RESULTS
One-thousand five-hundred-and-sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk-adjusted short-term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer-term (90 days-5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
For those receiving a DCD LT, longer-term post-transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1107-1119Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Dawwas MF, Gimson AE, Lewsey JD, Copley LP, Van Der Meulen JHP. Survival after liver transplantation in the United Kingdom and Ireland compared with the United States. Gut. 2007;56(11):1606-1613. doi:10.1136/gut.2006.111369
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. 2021;106:1390-1400. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000003978
Karthikesalingam A, Holt PJ, Vidal-Diez A, et al. Mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: clinical lessons from a comparison of outcomes in England and the USA. Lancet (London, England). 2014;383(9921):963-969. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60109-4
Carbone M, Nardi A, Marianelli T, et al. International comparison of liver transplant programmes: differences in indications, donor and recipient selection and outcome between Italy and UK. Liver Int. 2016;36(10):1481-1489. doi:10.1111/liv.13132
Wallace D, Cowling TE, Walker K, et al. Short- and long-term mortality after liver transplantation in patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma in the UK. Br J Surg. 2020;107(7):896-905. doi:10.1002/bjs.11451
Wallace D, Walker K, Charman S, et al. Assessing the impact of suboptimal donor characteristics on mortality after liver transplantation: a time-dependent analysis comparing HCC with non-HCC patients. Transplantation. 2019;103(4):e89-e98. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000002559
Kirchner VA, Goldaracena N, Sapisochin G, Alejandro RH, Shah SA. Current status of liver transplantation in North America. Int J Surg. 2020;82:9-13. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.05.059
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(3):441-449. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002383
Summers DM, Watson CJE, Pettigrew GJ, et al. Kidney donation after circulatory death (DCD): state of the art. Kidney Int. 2015;88(2):241-249. doi:10.1038/ki.2015.88
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. doi:10.1093/bjs/znab347
Giorgakis E, Ivanics T, Khorsandi SE, et al. Disparities in the use of older donation after circulatory death liver allografts in the United States versus the United Kingdom. Transplantation. 2022;106:e358-e367. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000004185
Kwong AJ, Kim WR, Lake JR, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2019 annual data report: liver. Am J Transplant. 2021;21(Suppl 2):208-315. doi:10.1111/ajt.16494
Croome KP, Lee DD, Keaveny AP, Taner CB. Improving National Results in liver transplantation using grafts from donation after cardiac death donors. Transplantation. 2016;100(12):2640-2647. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000001483
Taylor R, Allen E, Richards JA, Neuberger J, Collett D, Pettigrew GJ. Survival advantage for patients accepting the offer of a circulatory death liver transplant. J Hepatol. 2019;70:855-865.
NHS. NHS Blood and Transplant Organ Donation and Transplantation directorate Liver Advisory Group: Provision of Standard Data Sets for Liver Transplant. http://odt.nhs.uk/pdf/advisory_group_papers/LAG/Provision_of_Standard_Data_Set_for_Liver_Transplant_v4.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2021.
Dickinson DM, Bryant PC, Williams MC, et al. Transplant data: sources, collection, and caveats. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(Suppl 9):13-26. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6135.2004.00395.x
Roberts MS, Angus DC, Bryce CL, Valenta Z, Weissfeld L. Survival after liver transplantation in the United States: a disease-specific analysis of the UNOS database. Liver Transplant. 2004;10(7):886-897. doi:10.1002/lt.20137
Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. Vol 482. John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
Austin PC, Fine JP. Practical recommendations for reporting Fine-gray model analyses for competing risk data. Stat Med. 2017;36(27):4391-4400. doi:10.1002/sim.7501
White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377-399. doi:10.1002/sim.4067
Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Vol 81. John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
Ivanics T, Rizzari M, Moonka D, et al. Retransplantation outcomes for hepatitis C in the United States before and after direct-acting antiviral introduction. Am J Transplant. 2021;21(3):1100-1112. doi:10.1111/ajt.16254
Schlegel A, van Reeven M, Croome K, et al. A multicentre outcome analysis to define global benchmarks for donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2021;76:371-382. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2021.10.004
NHSBT. Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020: a detailed strategy. https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/1395/nhsbt_organ_donor_strategy.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2021.
OPTN. Updated National Liver Review Board guidance now in effect. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/news/updated-national-liver-review-board-guidance-now-in-effect/. Accessed August 26, 2022.
Axelrod DA, Guidinger MK, McCullough KP, Leichtman AB, Punch JD, Merion RM. Association of center volume with outcome after liver and kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(6):920-927. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00462.x
Giorgakis E, Khorsandi SE, Burdine L, et al. Centre volume impact on graft survival and waiting list time in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation in the USA. Br J Surg. 2021;108:e404-e406. doi:10.1093/bjs/znab348
Hobeika MJ, Menser T, Nguyen DT, Beal LL, Zajac S, Graviss EA. United States donation after circulatory death liver transplantation is driven by a few high-utilization transplant centers. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(1):320-321. doi:10.1111/ajt.15629
Croome KP, Taner CB. The changing landscapes in DCD liver transplantation. Curr Transplant Rep. 2020;7:194-204. doi:10.1007/s40472-020-00283-1
Vallance AE, VanderMeulen J, Kuryba A, et al. Impact of hepatobiliary service centralization on treatment and outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer and liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2017;104(7):918-925. doi:10.1002/bjs.10501
Jadlowiec CC, Macdonough E, Pont K, et al. Donation after circulatory death transplant outcomes using livers recovered by local surgeons. Liver Transplant. 2022;28(11):1726-1734. doi:10.1002/lt.26461
NHSBT. National protocols, policies and reports. NHSBT; 2022. https://www.odt.nhs.uk/retrieval/policies-and-nors-reports/. Accessed August 25, 2022.
Leventhal TM, Florek E, Chinnakotla S. Changes in liver allocation in United States. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2020;25(1):52-58. doi:10.1097/MOT.0000000000000726
Barber K, Madden S, Allen J, Collett D, Neuberger J, Gimson A. Elective liver transplant list mortality: development of a United Kingdom end-stage liver disease score. Transplantation. 2011;92(4):469-476. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e318225db4d
Gimson A. Development of a UK liver transplantation selection and allocation scheme. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2020;25(2):126-131. doi:10.1097/MOT.0000000000000743
Tschuor C, Ferrarese A, Kuemmerli C, et al. Allocation of liver grafts worldwide - is there a best system? J Hepatol. 2019;71(4):707-718. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2019.05.025
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(2):464-473. doi:10.1111/ajt.16803
Chan E, Logan AJ, Sneddon JM, et al. Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization. Am J Transplant. 2022;22(7):1901-1908. doi:10.1111/ajt.17006
Wey A, Noreen S, Gentry S, et al. The effect of acuity circles on deceased donor transplant and offer rates across model for end-stage liver disease scores and exception statuses. Liver Transplant. 2022;28(3):363-375. doi:10.1002/lt.26286
Nasralla D, Coussios CC, Mergental H, et al. A randomized trial of normothermic preservation in liver transplantation. Nature. 2018;557:50-56. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0047-9
Gallagher AM, Dedman D, Padmanabhan S, Leufkens HGM, de Vries F. 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(5):563-569. doi:10.1002/pds.4747
Massie AB, Kucirka LM, Segev DL. Big data in organ transplantation: registries and administrative claims. Am J Transplant. 2014;14(8):1723-1730. doi:10.1111/ajt.12777
Lehr S, Schemper M. Parsimonious analysis of time-dependent effects in the Cox model. Stat Med. 2007;26(13):2686-2698. doi:10.1002/sim.2742
Muller X, Marcon F, Sapisochin G, et al. Defining benchmarks in liver transplantation: a multicenter outcome analysis determining best achievable results. Ann Surg. 2018;267(3):419-425. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002477
Taner CB, Bulatao IG, Willingham DL, et al. Events in procurement as risk factors for ischemic cholangiopathy in liver transplantation using donation after cardiac death donors. Liver Transplant. 2012;18(1):100-111. doi:10.1002/lt.22404
Scalea JR, Redfield RR, Foley DP. Liver transplant outcomes using ideal donation after circulatory death livers are superior to using older donation after brain death donor livers. Liver Transplant. 2016;22(9):1197-1204. doi:10.1002/lt.24494