Back to Authors

Abraham, Nader

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9679-5642

Mayo Clinic

Duke University

Citations 1

Normothermic Machine Perfusion of Donor Livers for Transplantation in the United States
Chapman, William C. , Barbas, Andrew S. , D’Alessandro, Anthony M. , Vianna, Rodrigo , Abt, Peter L. , Sonnenday, Christopher J. , Barth, Rolf N. , Alvarez-Casas, Josue, Yersiz, Hasan, Genyk, Yuri , Sher, Linda , Singer, Andrew L., Doyle, Maria B. Majella, Sudan, Debra L. , Al‐Adra, David , Khan, Adeel , Subramanian, Vijay , Abraham, Nader , Olthoff, Kim M. , Tekin, Akin , Berg, Lynn, Morris, C.G. , Randle, Lucy V., Friend, Peter J. , Singer, Andrew, Chapman, William C , Sudan, Debra L , Kubal, Chandrashekhar A. , Eckhoff, Devin E. , Cannon, Robert M. , Feng, Sandy , Roll, Garrett Richard , Cohen, Ari J. , Coussios, Constantin C. , Knechtle, Stuart J.

Annals of Surgery | June 30, 2023 | Volume: 278 | Issue: 5 | Pages: e912-e921

10.1097/sla.0000000000005934 Get It

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.