Ohara, Stephanie

Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) enables preservation and functional assessment of liver allografts, improving outcomes, particularly in marginal organs. However, the TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) permits only single hepatic artery (HA) cannulation, limiting its use in grafts with variant arterial anatomy. Arterial reconstruction before NMP may overcome this limitation and expand the pool of grafts eligible for perfusion. We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study of adult liver transplants utilizing OCS from January 2022 to September 2024. Allografts with variant hepatic artery anatomy requiring arterial reconstruction before NMP initiation were identified. Postoperative outcomes, including vascular and biliary complications, were compared between reconstructed and non-reconstructed grafts. Among 541 OCS-preserved grafts, 74 (13.7%) underwent arterial reconstruction. Compared with non-reconstructed grafts, reconstructed grafts had longer cross-clamp to cannulation time (2.8 vs. 2.4 h, p <0.001), but similar rates of early allograft dysfunction (23.0% vs. 20.8%, p =0.65), ischemic cholangiopathy (4.1% vs. 4.1%, p =1.00), and primary nonfunction (0.0% vs. 0.4%, p =1.00). Early (2.7% vs. 0.2%, p =0.05) and late hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) (4.1% vs. 2.1%, p =0.40) were infrequent and not significantly different between non-reconstructed and reconstructed groups, respectively. Hepatic artery stenosis occurred more often in reconstructed grafts (12.2% vs. 4.1%, p =0.008), though most cases were managed with interventional radiology or surgical revision. Only one reconstructed graft required retransplantation due to vascular complications. Arterial reconstruction before NMP is safe and feasible, enabling successful perfusion and transplantation of liver allografts with variant HA anatomy. These findings support the broader application of NMP in anatomically complex donor livers.

Background. Ex vivo machine perfusion (MP) has transformed organ preservation, offering significant benefits in liver transplantation (LT), particularly with high-risk donor grafts. However, adoption in the United States has been limited. We aimed to examine early adoption trends, surgeon perceptions, and barriers to implementing MP in the United States after Food and Drug Administration approval of MP platforms. Methods. A 23-question electronic survey was distributed to members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons between October and November 2022, capturing attitudes and practices related to MP adoption. Responses from 96 surgeons representing 77 LT centers across 11 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network regions were analyzed. Results. Forty-four respondents (48%) reported having an MP program at their institution. Adoption of MP was significantly more common in high-volume centers and those performing ≥20 donation after circulatory death (DCD) transplants annually (P < 0.001). MP utilization received strong support, with 88% endorsing its use for DCD liver allografts and 82% for donation after brain death allografts. Respondents cited MP’s ability to reduce ischemic cholangiopathy, enable graft repair, and facilitate viability assessment as key benefits. Normothermic MP was preferred for high-risk donor profiles, including DCD grafts, older donors, and steatotic livers, and was associated with an increased willingness to accept medically complex grafts compared with static cold storage. Barriers to MP utilization included program costs, personnel demands, and logistical complexities. Centers with higher proportions of privately insured patients were more likely to adopt MP. Despite these challenges, 84% of respondents expressed interest in future MP adoption. Conclusions. MP enhances graft utilization and outcomes, particularly for complex and high-risk donor livers, but widespread US adoption requires addressing financial and logistical barriers. Future efforts should focus on refining cost-effectiveness analyses, collaboration with organ procurement organizations and device companies, and developing standardized training to optimize MP integration and maximize its clinical impact on LT.

Introduction Liver acceptance patterns vary significantly between transplant centers. Data pertaining to outcomes of livers declined by local and regional centers and allocated nationally remains limited. Project aim The objective was to compare post-liver transplant outcomes between liver allografts transplanted as a result of national and local-regional allocation. Design This was a retrospective evaluation of 109 nationally allocated liver allografts used for transplant by a single center. Outcomes of nationally allocated grafts were compared to standard allocation grafts (N = 505) during the same period. Results Recipients of nationally allocated grafts had lower model for end stage liver disease scores (17 vs 22, P = .001). Nationally allocated grafts were more likely to be post-cross clamp offers (29.4% vs 13.4%, P = .001) and have longer cold ischemia times (median hours 7.8 vs 5.5, P = .001). Early allograft dysfunction was common (54.1% vs 52.5%, P = .75) and did not impact hospital length of stay (median 5 vs 6 days, P = .89). There were no differences in biliary complications ( P = .11). There were no differences in patient ( P = .88) or graft survival ( P = .35). In a multivariate model, after accounting for differences in cold ischemia time and posttransplant biliary complications, nationally allocated grafts were not associated with increased risk for graft loss (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-1.8). Abnormal liver biopsy findings (33.0%) followed by donor donation after circulatory death status (22.9%) were the most common reasons for decline by local-regional centers. Conclusion Despite longer cold ischemia times, patient and graft survival outcomes remain excellent and comparable to those seen from standard allocation grafts.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7–1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7–1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.