Olthoff, Kim M.

Background. Critically ill cirrhotic patients are increasingly transplanted, but there is no consensus about futile liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the decision to delay or deny LT is often extensively debated. These debates arise from different opinions of futility among transplant team members. This study aims to achieve a multinational and multidisciplinary consensus on the definition of futility in LT and to develop well-articulated criteria for not proceeding with LT due to futility. Methods. Thirty-five international experts from anesthesiology/intensive care, hepatology, and transplant surgery were surveyed using the Delphi method. More than 70% of similar answers to a question were necessary to define agreement. Results. The panel recommended patient and graft survival at 1 year after LT to define futility. Severe frailty and persistent fever or <72 hours of appropriate antimicrobial therapy in case of ongoing sepsis were considered reasons to delay LT. A simple assessment of the number of organs failing was considered the most appropriate way to decide whether LT should be delayed or denied, with respiratory, circulatory and metabolic failures having the most influence in this decision. The thresholds of severity of organ failures contraindicating LT for which a consensus was achieved were a Pa o 2 /FiO2 ratio<150 mm Hg, a norepinephrine dose >1 μg/kg per minute and a serum lactate level >9 mmol/L. Conclusions. Our expert panel provides a consensus on the definition of futile LT and on specific criteria for postponing or denying LT. A framework that may facilitate the decision if a patient is too sick for transplant is presented.

AbstractLong‐term outcomes of the Fontan operation include Fontan failure and liver disease. Combined heart‐liver transplantation (CHLT) is an option for select patients although limited data exist on this strategy. A retrospective review of Fontan patients 18 years or older referred for cardiac transplant evaluation between 2000 and 2013 at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania was performed. All patients were considered for potential CHLT. Clinical variables such as demographics, perioperative factors, and short‐term outcomes were reviewed. Of 17 referrals for cardiac transplantation, seven Fontan patients underwent CHLT. All patients who underwent CHLT had either advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis on liver biopsy. There were no perioperative deaths. The most common postoperative morbidity was acute kidney injury. Short‐term complications include one episode of acute liver rejection but no cardiac rejection greater than 1R. CHLT is an acceptable therapeutic option for patients with failing Fontan physiology who exhibit concomitant advanced liver fibrosis. However, optimal patient selection is currently undefined, and long‐term outcomes are not known.

The current system granting liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) additional Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) points is controversial due to geographic disparity and uncertainty regarding optimal prioritization of candidates. The current national policy assigns a MELD exception score of 22 immediately upon listing of eligible patients with HCC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential effects of delays in granting these exception points on transplant rates for HCC and non‐HCC patients. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data and liver simulated allocation modeling software and modeled (1) a 3‐month delay before granting a MELD exception score of 25, (2) a 6‐month delay before granting a score of 28, and (3) a 9‐month delay before granting a score of 29. Of all candidates waitlisted between January 1 and December 31, 2010 (n = 28,053), 2773 (9.9%) had an HCC MELD exception. For HCC candidates, transplant rates would be 108.7, 65.0, 44.2, and 33.6 per 100 person‐years for the current policy and for 3‐, 6‐, and 9‐month delays, respectively. Corresponding rates would be 30.1, 32.5, 33.9, and 34.8 for non‐HCC candidates. Conclusion: A delay of 6‐9 months would eliminate the geographic variability in the discrepancy between HCC and non‐HCC transplant rates under current policy and may allow for more equal access to transplant for all candidates. (Hepatology 2015;61:1643–1650)