Schlegel, Andrea

Background and Objectives: Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is an effective technique to improve recipient outcomes. However, no valid methods for determining liver viability exist. Identifying relevant biological markers with clinical correlation to liver viability and recipient clinical outcomes is imperative to improve decision-making. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four donors undergoing NRP and their recipients were included. FMN was measured at the start, 1 h, and end of NRP. Lactate was measured at the start, 30, 60, and 90 min of NRP. Primary outcomes were early allograft function using the early allograft dysfunction (EAD) criteria and the model for early allograft function (MEAF). Secondary outcomes included the association with donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), stratified by 30 min. Spearman’s rho assessed correlations. Results: Forty (74%) livers were transplanted, with 5 (12.5%) recipients developing EAD and the mean MEAF score was 3.13 (1.49). FMN at all time points was significantly greater in the EAD group compared to the non-EAD group and was significantly correlated with the MEAF score (Peak FMN: rho = 0.507, p = 0.001). FMN during perfusion did not differ between DWIT < and ≥30 min. Lactate levels were similar across all groups and did not discriminate for adverse allograft outcomes. However, lactate levels during perfusion were higher in the DWIT ≥ 30 min group. Conclusions: These findings suggest that during NRP, elevated FMN, but not lactate, is associated with early allograft function.

Abstract Background Machine perfusion represents the most significant breakthrough in liver transplantation (LT) since the discovery of cyclosporin. Yet, the optimal perfusion strategy remains unsettled. Randomized trials demonstrate that hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) improves graft survival and function and reduces ischemic cholangiopathy, whereas normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) decreases post-transplant injury. Real-world comparisons are lacking and challenging due to heterogeneity in donor-recipient risk profiles and regional differences. Aims To compare real-world outcomes of HOPE and NMP in LT. Methods We analyzed consecutive NMP-preserved LTs from seven North American centers between 2021 and 2024. We compared NMP to the European HOPE-REAL cohort, comprising HOPE-treated LTs from 22 centers between 2012 and 2021. Analyses were stratifyied by graft type and risk category and adjusted for donor age, donor risk index, and balance of risk score using entropy balancing. Results A total of 470 NMP and 1202 HOPE-treated grafts were analyzed, revealing major differences in risk profiles (Figure 1). In NMP, death-censored graft survivals at 1, 2, and 3 years were &gt;95% in donation after brain death (DBD) and &gt;94% in donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts. Comparable outcomes were observed in the HOPE cohort with &gt;93%, in DBD, and &gt;87% in DCD after up to 3 years, despite significantly higher donor age and longer functional warm ischemia in the HOPE DCD cohort (Figure 2). After risk adjustment, death-censored graft survival remained similar between both modalities (Table 1). Non-anastomotic biliary stricture rates after DCD-LT were comparable (8.5% vs. 12.4%), independent of whether continuous or end-ischemic NMP was performed. Conclusion This first transatlantic real-world report demonstrates excellent outcomes with both NMP and HOPE despite higher graft risk in Europe. Machine perfusion is the new standard of care in LT, while further understanding is needed regarding the distinct benefits of each modality across risk profiles.Figure 1.Graft risk in NMP and HOPE stratified by graft type. Benchmark case was defined as primary transplant with MELD &lt;20 and BAR score &lt;9, extended criteria as either BMI &gt;30kg/m2, donor age &gt;65 years, CIT &gt;12h. DCD grafts were categorized as definedFor image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. Figure 2.Death-censored graft survival in liver transplantation following NMP and HOPE stratified by graft type. Abbreviations: NMP (Normothermic Machine Perfusion), HOPE (Hypothermic Oxygenated Perfusion), DBD (Donation after Brain Death), DCD (Donation after circulatory death)For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. Table 1.Risk-adjusted comparison of death-censored graft survival between NMP and HOPE.For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

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 &amp;lt; .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 .

Although the utilization of donation after circulatory death donors (DCDs) for liver transplantation (LT) has increased steadily, much controversy remains, and no common acceptance criteria exist with regard to donor and recipient risk factors and prediction models. A consensus conference was organized by International Liver Transplantation Society on January 31, 2020, in Venice, Italy, to review the current clinical practice worldwide regarding DCD-LT and to develop internationally accepted guidelines. The format of the conference was based on the grade system. International experts in this field were allocated to 6 working groups and prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. Working group members and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and recommendations provided by working group 2, covering the entire spectrum of donor and recipient risk factors and prediction models in DCD-LT.