Roll, Garrett Richard

Importance Ischemia-reperfusion injury contributes to graft dysfunction after liver transplant. Hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) has been shown to improve liver function, but its benefit in extended criteria donors in a US population remains unclear. Objective To assess whether back-to-base portal-venous HOPE impacts outcomes after liver transplant in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants The Bridge to HOPE Trial is a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial with 1-year follow-up. The study took place at 15 US liver transplant centers and patients were enrolled between January 2021 and May 2023. Central assessment of complications and cholangiograms for nonanastomotic biliary strictures (NAS) was blinded to treatment arm. Participants included 219 recipients of extended-criteria donor livers after brain death (DBD) and after circulatory death (DCD) who were randomized 1:1 to HOPE after static cold storage (SCS) (n = 109) or SCS only (n = 110). Randomization was performed after liver inspection and acceptance for transplant. Data were analyzed from December 2024 to July 2025. Intervention After SCS and transport, livers underwent portal-venous HOPE until implant, using the VitaSmart HOPE System. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy end point was early allograft dysfunction (EAD). Other main outcomes included model for early allograft function (MEAF) score, hospital length of stay (LOS), patient and graft survival, and biliary complications. Additional post hoc analyses were performed. Results Overall, 219 patients (82 female [37.4%] and 137 male[62.6%]) were included (DCD, 57 of 219 [26%]) with 97% (212 of 219) completing 12-month follow-up. EAD incidence was 20.2% (22 of 109) with HOPE vs 37.3% (41 of 110) with SCS (rate difference, −17.1%; 95% CI, −27.2 to −7.0; noninferiority P < .001; superiority P = .005). HOPE treatment led to significantly lower MEAF mean (SD) scores (HOPE group, 4.28 [1.75]; control group, 4.82 [1.85]; mean difference, −0.54; 95% CI, −1.02 to −0.06; P = .03) and shorter median LOS (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.01-1.73; P = .04). NAS on imaging and 1-year survivals were comparable between groups (patients: HOPE group, 106 of 109 [97.2%] vs SCS, 106 of 110 [96.4%]; graft: HOPE group, 104 of 109 [95.4%] vs SCS, 102 of 110 [92.7%]). Post hoc analyses showed numerically less graft loss due to NAS after HOPE (4 vs 1) and less major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥IIIa) per patient, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance Back-to-base portal-venous HOPE was compared with SCS alone for extended risk DBD and DCD livers. The HOPE approach was safe and associated with reduced EAD, MEAF score, and LOS. These findings support the use of HOPE as a pragmatic strategy to improve early posttransplant outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05045794 .

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.

Objective: To examine whether body mass index (BMI) changes modify the association between kidney donation and incident hypertension. Background: Obesity increases hypertension risk in both general and living kidney donor (LKD) populations. Donation-attributable risk in the context of obesity, and whether weight change modifies that risk, is unknown. Methods: Nested case-control study among 1558 adult LKDs (1976–2020) with obesity (median follow-up: 3.6 years; interquartile range: 2.0–9.4) and 3783 adults with obesity in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) and Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) studies (9.2 y; interquartile range: 5.3–15.8). Hypertension incidence was compared by donor status using conditional logistic regression, with BMI change investigated for effect modification. Results: Overall, LKDs and nondonors had similar hypertension incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.16, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.94–1.43, P=0.16], even after adjusting for BMI change (IRR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.99–1.58, P=0.05). Although LKDs and nondonors who lost >5% BMI had comparable hypertension incidence (IRR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.46–1.34, P=0.36), there was a significant interaction between donor and >5% BMI gain (multiplicative interaction IRR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.15–2.29, P=0.006; relative excess risk due to interaction: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.24–1.56, P=0.007), such that LKDs who gained weight had higher hypertension incidence than similar nondonors (IRR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.32–2.53, P<0.001). Conclusions: Overall, LKDs and nondonors with obesity had similar hypertension incidence. Weight stability and loss were associated with similar hypertension incidence by donor status. However, LKDs who gained >5% saw increased hypertension incidence versus similar nondonors, providing support for counseling potential LKDs with obesity on weight management postdonation.