Kubal, Chandrashekhar A.

Importance Ischemia-reperfusion injury contributes to graft dysfunction after liver transplant. Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) has been shown to improve liver function, but its benefit in extended criteria donors in a US population remains unclear. Objective To assess whether back-to-base portal-venous HOPE impacts outcomes after liver transplant in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants The Bridge to HOPE Trial is a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial with 1-year follow-up. The study took place at 15 US liver transplant centers and patients were enrolled between January 2021 and May 2023. Central assessment of complications and cholangiograms for nonanastomotic biliary strictures (NAS) was blinded to treatment arm. Participants included 219 recipients of extended-criteria donor livers after brain death (DBD) and after circulatory death (DCD) who were randomized 1:1 to HOPE after static cold storage (SCS) (n = 109) or SCS only (n = 110). Randomization was performed after liver inspection and acceptance for transplant. Data were analyzed from December 2024 to July 2025. Intervention After SCS and transport, livers underwent portal-venous HOPE until implant, using the VitaSmart HOPE System. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy end point was early allograft dysfunction (EAD). Other main outcomes included model for early allograft function (MEAF) score, hospital length of stay (LOS), patient and graft survival, and biliary complications. Additional post hoc analyses were performed. Results Overall, 219 patients (82 female [37.4%] and 137 male[62.6%]) were included (DCD, 57 of 219 [26%]) with 97% (212 of 219) completing 12-month follow-up. EAD incidence was 20.2% (22 of 109) with HOPE vs 37.3% (41 of 110) with SCS (rate difference, −17.1%; 95% CI, −27.2 to −7.0; noninferiority P < .001; superiority P = .005). HOPE treatment led to significantly lower MEAF mean (SD) scores (HOPE group, 4.28 [1.75]; control group, 4.82 [1.85]; mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.06; P = .03) and shorter median LOS (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.01-1.73; P = .04). NAS on imaging and 1-year survivals were comparable between groups (patients: HOPE group, 106 of 109 [97.2%] vs SCS, 106 of 110 [96.4%]; graft: HOPE group, 104 of 109 [95.4%] vs SCS, 102 of 110 [92.7%]). Post hoc analyses showed numerically less graft loss due to NAS after HOPE (4 vs 1) and less major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥IIIa) per patient, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance Back-to-base portal-venous HOPE was compared with SCS alone for extended risk DBD and DCD livers. The HOPE approach was safe and associated with reduced EAD, MEAF score, and LOS. These findings support the use of HOPE as a pragmatic strategy to improve early posttransplant outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05045794 .

Plasma exchange (PE) is a promising therapeutic option in patients with acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, the impact of PE on patient survival in these syndromes is unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the use of PE in patients with ALF and ACLF compared with standard medical therapy (SMT). We searched PubMed/Embase/Cochrane databases to include all studies comparing PE versus SMT for patients ≥ 18 years of age with ALF and ACLF. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. The primary outcome was 30-day survival for ACLF and ALF. Secondary outcomes were overall and 90-day survival for ALF and ACLF, respectively. Five studies, including 343 ALF patients (n = 174 PE vs. n = 169 SMT), and 20 studies, including 5,705 ACLF patients (n = 2,856 PE vs. n = 2,849 SMT), were analyzed. Compared with SMT, PE was significantly associated with higher 30-day (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06–1.87, p = 0.02) and overall (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.12–1.63, p = 0.002) survival in ALF patients. In ACLF, PE was also significantly associated with higher 30-day (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.22–1.52, p < 0.001) and 90-day (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10–1.34, p < 0.001) survival. On subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials, results remained unchanged in ALF, but no differences in survival were found between PE and SMT in ACLF. In conclusion, PE is associated with improved survival in ALF and could improve survival in ACLF. PE may be considered in managing ALF and ACLF patients who are not liver transplant (LT) candidates or as a bridge to LT in otherwise eligible patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the survival benefit of PE in ACLF.

Objective: To compare conventional low-temperature storage of transplant donor livers [static cold storage (SCS)] with storage of the organs at physiological body temperature [normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)]. Background: The high success rate of liver transplantation is constrained by the shortage of transplantable organs (eg, waiting list mortality >20% in many centers). NMP maintains the liver in a functioning state to improve preservation quality and enable testing of the organ before transplantation. This is of greatest potential value with organs from brain-dead donor organs (DBD) with risk factors (age and comorbidities), and those from donors declared dead by cardiovascular criteria (donation after circulatory death). Methods: Three hundred eighty-three donor organs were randomized by 15 US liver transplant centers to undergo NMP (n = 192) or SCS (n = 191). Two hundred sixty-six donor livers proceeded to transplantation (NMP: n = 136; SCS: n = 130). The primary endpoint of the study was “early allograft dysfunction” (EAD), a marker of early posttransplant liver injury and function. Results: The difference in the incidence of EAD did not achieve significance, with 20.6% (NMP) versus 23.7% (SCS). Using exploratory, “as-treated” rather than “intent-to-treat,” subgroup analyses, there was a greater effect size in donation after circulatory death donor livers (22.8% NMP vs 44.6% SCS) and in organs in the highest risk quartile by donor risk (19.2% NMP vs 33.3% SCS). The incidence of acute cardiovascular decompensation at organ reperfusion, “postreperfusion syndrome,” as a secondary outcome was reduced in the NMP arm (5.9% vs 14.6%). Conclusions: NMP did not lower EAD, perhaps related to the inclusion of lower-risk liver donors, as higher-risk donor livers seemed to benefit more. The technology is safe in standard organ recovery and seems to have the greatest benefit for marginal donors.