Giorgakis, Emmanouil

ABSTRACT Introduction Although liver transplantation (LT) rates have increased globally, the demand for organs still exceeds the supply. This review highlights cultures with significant influences on organ donation and LT. Methods We performed a literature search for articles related to cultures, ethnologies, philosophies, policies, religions, socio‐economic factors, and other influences affecting organ donation in LT around the world. Results There are astonishing similarities between different cultures. In Africa, Asia, and Europe, people often view the postmortem bodies as sacred and believe that their bodies are gifts from “God” or ancestors. To respect the gift of life, to have a chance in reincarnation, or to enjoy life after death, many believe that their bodily sanctity must be preserved. In Asia, Europe, and Latin America, there is a general reluctance to speak about death. Religions also play an important role in people's views on organ donation. Different regions around the world have similar challenges to organ donation, such as misconceptions about organ trafficking, political and economic instability, and a lack of governmental or religious support. Conclusion Addressing the complexities of organ donation and LT requires a multifaceted approach. Culturally sensitive education tailored to diverse communities can dispel myths and misconceptions surrounding organ donation. Fostering partnerships between healthcare providers, religious leaders, community organizations, and policymakers can further facilitate open dialogues and promote organ donation as a noble act to save lives. Social Media Similar cultures around the world post challenges for organ donation. Organizations should foster partnerships between healthcare providers, politicians, and religious leaders to promote donation.

AbstractBackground and AimsIdentifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population‐level insight.MethodsAdult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time‐dependent Cox‐regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk‐adjusted short‐term (0–90 days) and longer‐term (90 days–5 years) outcomes.ResultsOne‐thousand five‐hundred‐and‐sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End‐stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk‐adjusted short‐term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer‐term (90 days–5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49–0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58–0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001).ConclusionsFor those receiving a DCD LT, longer‐term post‐transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading indications for liver transplantation and has been the treatment of choice due to the oncologic benefit for patients with advanced chronic liver disease (AdvCLD) and small tumors for the last 25 years. For HCC patients undergoing liver transplantation, alpha fetoprotein (AFP) has increasingly been applied as an independent predictor for overall survival, disease free recurrence, and waitlist drop out. In addition to static AFP, newer studies evaluating the AFP dynamic response to downstaging therapy show enhanced prognostication compared to static AFP alone. While AFP has been utilized to select HCC patients for transplant, despite years of allocation policy changes, the US allocation system continues to take a uniform approach to HCC patients, without discriminating between those with favorable or unfavorable tumor biology. We aim to review the history of liver allocation for HCC in the US, the utility of AFP in liver transplantation, the implications of weaving AFP as a biomarker into policy. Based on this review, we encourage the US transplant community to revisit its HCC organ allocation model, to incorporate more precise oncologic principles for patient selection, and to adopt AFP dynamics to better stratify waitlist dropout risk.

Background. This study aimed to assess the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in the characteristics and posttransplant survival of patients who received donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts from donors aged >60 y. Methods. Data were collected from the UK Transplant Registry and the United Network for Organ Sharing databases. Cohorts were dichotomized into donor age subgroups (donor >60 y [D >60]; donor ≤60 y [D ≤60]). Study period: January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015. Results. 1157 DCD LTs were performed in the United Kingdom versus 3394 in the United States. Only 13.8% of US DCD donors were aged >50 y, contrary to 44.3% in the United Kingdom. D >60 were 22.6% in the United Kingdom versus 2.4% in the United States. In the United Kingdom, 64.2% of D >60 clustered in 2 metropolitan centers. In the United States, there was marked inter-regional variation. A total of 78.3% of the US DCD allografts were used locally. One- and 5-y unadjusted DCD graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom versus the United States (87.3% versus 81.4%, and 78.0% versus 71.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). One- and 5-y D >60 graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom (87.3% versus 68.1%, and 77.9% versus 51.4%, United Kingdom versus United States, respectively; P < 0.001). In both groups, grafts from donors ≤30 y had the best survival. Survival was similar for donors aged 41 to 50 versus 51 to 60 in both cohorts. Conclusions. Compared with the United Kingdom, older DCD LT utilization remained low in the United States, with worse D >60 survival. Nonetheless, present data indicate similar survivals for older donors aged ≤60, supporting an extension to the current US DCD age cutoff.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver malignancy and third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. For early- and intermediate-stage disease, liver-directed therapies for locoregional control, or down-staging prior to definitive surgical therapy with hepatic resection or liver transplantation, have been studied broadly, and are the mainstays of current treatment guidelines. As HCC incidence has continued to grow, and with more patients presenting with advanced disease, our current treatment modalities do not suffice, and better therapies are needed to improve disease-specific and overall survival. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy utilized, and was associated with dismal results. The advent of immuno-oncology has been of significant interest, and has changed the paradigm of therapy for HCC. Lately, combination regimens including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; durvalumab plus tremelimumab; and pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib have shown impressive responses of between 25–35%; this is much higher than responses observed with single agents. Complete responses with checkpoint inhibitor therapy have been observed in advanced-stage HCC patients. These dramatic results have naturally led to several questions. Can or should checkpoint inhibitors, or other immunotherapy combinations, be used routinely before resection or transplant? Is there a synergistic effect of immunotherapy with locoregional therapy, and will pre-treatment increase disease-free survival after surgical intervention? Is it immunologically safe to use these therapies prior to transplantation? Much is still to be learned in terms of the dosing, timing, and overall utility of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for pre-transplant care and down-staging. More studies will be needed to understand the management of adverse events while maximizing the therapeutic window of these agents. In this review, we look at the current data on therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced HCC, with a focus on pre-transplant treatment prior to liver transplant.

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.

Purpose of review Deceased donation represents the largest supply of organs for transplant in the United States. Organs with suboptimal characteristics related to donor disease or recovery-related issues are increasingly discarded at the time of recovery, prompting late allocation to candidates later in the match sequence. Late allocation contributes to organ injury by prolonging cold ischemia, which may further lead to the risk of organ discard, despite the potential to provide benefit to certain transplant candidates. Recent findings Expedited placement of marginal organs has emerged as a strategy to address the growing problem of organ discard of marginal organs that have been declined late after recovery. In this review, we describe the basis for expedited organ placement, and approaches to facilitating placement of these grafts, drawing examples from kidney and liver donation and transplantation globally. Summary There is significant global variation in practice related to late allocation. Multiple policy mechanisms exist to facilitate expedited placement, including simultaneous offers to multiple centers, predesignation of aggressive centers, and increasing organ procurement organization autonomy in late allocation. Optimizing late allocation of deceased donor organs holds significant promise to increase the number of transplants.

Objective: To understand whether reduced lengths of stay after kidney transplantation were associated with excess health care utilization in the first 90 days or long-term graft and patient survival outcomes. Background: Reducing length of stay after kidney transplant has an unknown effect on post-transplant health care utilization. We studied this association in a cohort of 1001 consecutive kidney transplants. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 2011–2015 data from a prospectively-maintained kidney transplant database from a single center. Results: A total of 1001 patients underwent kidney transplant, and were dismissed from the hospital in 3 groups: Early [≤2 days] (19.8%), Normal [3–7 days] (79.4%) and Late [>7 days] (3.8%). 34.8% of patients had living donor transplants (Early 51%, Normal 31.4%, Late 18.4%, P < 0.001). Early patients had lower delayed graft function rates (Early 19.2%, Normal 32%, Late73.7%, P = 0.001). By the hospital dismissal group, there were no differences in readmissions or emergency room visits at 30 or 90 days. Glomerular filtration rate at 12 months and rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection were also similar between groups. The timing of hospital dismissal was not associated with the risk-adjusted likelihood of readmission. Early and Normal patients had similar graft and patient survival. Late dismissal patients, who had higher rates of cardiovascular complications, had significantly higher late mortality versus Normal dismissal patients in unadjusted and risk-adjusted models. Conclusion: Dismissing patients from the hospital 2 days after kidney transplant is safe, feasible, and improves value. It is not associated with excess health care utilization or worse short or long-term transplant outcomes.