Eckhoff, Devin E.

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.

BackgroundData on liver transplant (LT) outcomes using deceased donors with heavy drinking (HD) (>2 drinks per day) are scanty.MethodsUsing the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2014), we examined outcomes after LT in adults comparing deceased HD donors with non-HD (ND) donors.ResultsOf 56 182 first LTs performed in the United States for 10 common indications using deceased donors, 47 882 with available information on alcohol use were analyzed. Of these 47 882 LT recipients, 7298 (15%) were from HD donors, with similar proportion over time (2002-2014, Armitage trend testP= 0.75) and for recipient liver disease etiology (χ2P= 0.42). Proportion of liver organ used for LT was lower for HD donors compared with ND donors (63% vs 78%;P< 0.001). Five-year outcomes on first LT comparing 7166 HD donors and 21 498 ND donors matched based on propensity score were similar for liver graft (73.7% vs 73.7%, log rankP= 0.98) and patient survival (77.6% vs 77.0%,P= 0.36). On Cox regression analysis, history of HD in deceased donors did not affect liver graft 1.02 (0.97-1.08) or patient survival 1.03 (0.97-1.09).ConclusionsAmong LT recipients using select liver grafts, history of HD in deceased donors does not impact outcomes after LT.