Singer, Andrew

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.

Background. The risk of donor-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in solid organ (heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine) transplant recipients is poorly understood. Since hematogenous transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented to date, nonlung solid organs might be suitable for transplantation since they likely portend a low risk of viral transmission. Methods. Abdominal solid organs from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors were transplanted into uninfected recipients. Results. Between April 18, 2021, and October 30, 2021, we performed transplants of 2 livers, 1 simultaneous liver and kidney, 1 kidney, and 1 simultaneous kidney and pancreas from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into 5 uninfected recipients. None of the recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection or coronavirus disease 2019, and when tested, allograft biopsies showed no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Conclusions. Transplanting nonlung organs from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into uninfected recipients demonstrated no evidence of virus transmission.

During 2001–2015, numbers of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantations (LTs) remained surprisingly low. Post-transplant outcomes improved overall over time, regardless of centre volume. High-volume centres that promoted DCD LT significantly shortened their waiting list time, therefore limiting waiting list mortality and drop-outs.

AbstractKidney transplant (KT) outcomes from high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥85%) donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) remain underreported. KT from 172 high KDPI Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) stage 0‐1 donors and 76 high KDPI AKIN stage 2‐3 donors from a single center were retrospectively assessed. The AKIN 2‐3 cohort had more delayed graft function (71% vs. 37%, p < .001). At one year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (44 ± 17 vs. 46 ± 18, p = .42) or fibrosis on protocol biopsy (ci, p = .85). Donor terminal creatinine (p = .59) and length of delayed graft function (p = .39) did not impact one‐year eGFR. There were more primary nonfunction (PNF) events in the high KDPI AKIN 2‐3 group (5.3% vs. 0.6%, p = .02). With a median follow‐up of 3.8 years, one‐year death‐censored graft failure was 3.5% for AKIN 0‐1 and 14.5% for AKIN 2‐3 (HR 2.40, 95% CI 1.24‐4.63, p = .01). Although AKIN stage 2‐3 high KDPI kidneys had comparable one‐year eGFR to AKIN stage 0‐1 high KDPI kidneys, there were more PNF occurrences and one‐year death‐censored graft survival was reduced. Given these findings, additional precautions should be undertaken when assessing and utilizing kidneys from severe AKI high KDPI donors.