Montenovo, Martin I.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers increasingly use machine perfusion (MP). This study evaluates MP’s impact on older DCD livers based on data from the United Network for Data Sharing, covering all first adult DCD liver transplants (2016–2025). The cohort, divided into pre-MP and MP eras (separated by the FDA approval of the first normothermic MP platform in 2021), showed accelerated growth in DCD liver transplants during the MP era. Donors ≥60 rose 7.8-fold, including donors ≥70 (a USA first). By 2025, DCD livers accounted for 43.2%, with 61.35% from donors ≥50. Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) (3.0%–21.7%), NMP (2.3%–35.6%), and sequential NRP-NMP (0.1%–19.2%) increased significantly (p < 0.001). The MP era was associated with a decrease in median waitlist time from 112 to 62 days (p < 0.001). Early graft survival was similar across ages. For ages 50–59, 1- and 3-year survivals were 87.9%/78.4% pre-MP and 90.1%/78.8% in the MP era. For 60–69, survival was 85.0%/80.6% pre-MP and 90.0%/71.3% in the MP era. DCD LTs for ≥70 were limited to the MP era with 87.8% 1-year survival. Multivariable Cox regression showed that static cold storage (HR = 1.19), donor age 50–69 versus 18–49, and recipient age (HR = 1.04) increased the risk of graft loss after adjustment. MP is associated with an increased number of older DCD liver transplants and acceptable early graft survival.

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.

Background. Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) has emerged as a vital technique in organ procurement, particularly in donation after circulatory death (DCD) cases, offering the potential to optimize organ utilization and improve posttransplant outcomes. Recognizing its significance, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) convened a work group to develop standardized recommendations for abdominal NRP in the United States. Methods. The workgroup, comprising experts in NRP, DCD, and transplantation, formulated recommendations through a collaborative process involving revisions and approvals by relevant committees and the ASTS council. Four key areas were identified for standardization: Preprocedure communication, NRP procedure, Terminology and documentation, and Mentorship/credentialing. Results. The recommendations encompass a range of considerations, including preprocedure communication protocols to facilitate informed decision-making by transplant centers and organ procurement organizations, procedural guidelines for NRP teams, uniform terminology to clarify the NRP process, and standards for mentorship and credentialing of NRP practitioners. Specific recommendations address logistical concerns, procedural nuances, documentation requirements, and the importance of ongoing quality assurance. Conclusions. The standardized recommendations for abdominal NRP presented in this article aim to ensure consistency, safety, and efficacy in the organ procurement process. By establishing clear protocols and guidelines, the ASTS seeks to enhance organ utilization, honor donor wishes, and uphold public trust in the donation process. Implementation of these recommendations can contribute to the advancement of NRP practices and improve outcomes for transplant recipients.

Importance Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is an emerging recovery modality for transplantable allografts from controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) donors. In the US, only 11.4% of liver recipients who are transplanted from a deceased donor receive a cDCD liver. NRP has the potential to safely expand the US donor pool with improved transplant outcomes as compared with standard super rapid recovery (SRR). Objective To assess outcomes of US liver transplants using controlled donation after circulatory death livers recovered with normothermic regional perfusion vs standard super rapid recovery. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a retrospective, observational cohort study comparing liver transplant outcomes from cDCD donors recovered by NRP vs SRR. Outcomes of cDCD liver transplant from January 2017 to May 2023 were collated from 17 US transplant centers and included livers recovered by SRR and NRP (thoracoabdominal NRP [TA-NRP] and abdominal NRP [A-NRP]). Seven transplant centers used NRP, allowing for liver allografts to be transplanted at 17 centers; 10 centers imported livers recovered via NRP from other centers. Exposures cDCD livers were recovered by either NRP or SRR. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Secondary end points included primary nonfunction (PNF), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary anastomotic strictures, posttransplant length of stay (LOS), and patient and graft survival. Results A total of 242 cDCD livers were included in this study: 136 recovered by SRR and 106 recovered by NRP (TA-NRP, 79 and A-NRP, 27). Median (IQR) NRP and SRR donor age was 30.5 (22-44) years and 36 (27-49) years, respectively. Median (IQR) posttransplant LOS was significantly shorter in the NRP cohort (7 [5-11] days vs 10 [7-16] days; P < .001). PNF occurred only in the SRR allografts group (n = 2). EAD was more common in the SRR cohort (123 of 136 [56.1%] vs 77 of 106 [36.4%]; P = .007). Biliary anastomotic strictures were increased 2.8-fold in SRR recipients (7 of 105 [6.7%] vs 30 of 134 [22.4%]; P = .001). Only SRR recipients had IC (0 vs 12 of 133 [9.0%]; P = .002); IC-free survival by Kaplan-Meier was significantly improved in NRP recipients. Patient and graft survival were comparable between cohorts. Conclusion and Relevance There was comparable patient and graft survival in liver transplant recipients of cDCD donors recovered by NRP vs SRR, with reduced rates of IC, biliary complications, and EAD in NRP recipients. The feasibility of A-NRP and TA-NRP implementation across multiple US transplant centers supports increasing adoption of NRP to improve organ use, access to transplant, and risk of wait-list mortality.

We conducted a web-based survey to characterize liver transplant (LT) evaluation and listing practices for patients being evaluated for combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLT), with a specific emphasis on patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), around transplant centers in North America. Very few protocols for liver evaluation and listing in patients undergoing combined heart-liver transplantation are published, and no guidelines currently exist on this topic. A subject of intense debate in the transplant community is the decision of which patients with CHD and liver disease benefit from CHLT compared with heart transplantation. A focus group from the American Society of Transplantation Liver-Intestine Community of Practice Education Subcommittee developed a web-based survey that included questions (1) respondee demographic information; (2) LT evaluation practices in CHLT; (3) liver organ listing practices in CHLT, and (4) 4 clinical vignettes with case-based scenarios in CHLT liver listings among CHD patients who underwent Fontan palliation. The survey was distributed to medical and surgical LT program directors of 47 centers that had completed at least 1 CHLT up to July 2021 in the US and the University of Toronto, Canada. The survey had an excellent 83% response rate (87% for centers that completed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 y). Total 66.7% used transjugular liver biopsy with HVPG measurements, 30% used percutaneous liver biopsy with no consensus on the use of a fibrosis staging system, 95% mandated contrasted cross-sectional imaging, and 65% upper endoscopy. The following isolated findings evaluation mandated CHLT listing: isolated elevated HVPG (61.5%); the presence of portosystemic collaterals on imaging (67.5%); the endoscopic presence of esophageal or gastric varices (75%), and the presence of HCC (80%), whereas the majority of centers did not feel that the presence of isolated splenomegaly (100%), thrombocytopenia (81.6%), endoscopic findings of portal hypertensive gastropathy (66.7%), or highly sensitized patients (84.6%) justified CHLT. In our survey of North American centers that had performed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 years, we observed heterogeneity in practices for both evaluation and listing protocols in these patients.

The presence of an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a cirrhotic liver is a contraindication for liver transplantation in most centers worldwide. Recent investigations have shown that “very early” iCCA (single tumors ≤2 cm) may have acceptable results after liver transplantation. This study further evaluates this finding in a larger international multicenter cohort. The study group was composed of those patients who were transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma or decompensated cirrhosis and found to have an iCCA at explant pathology. Patients were divided into those with “very early” iCCA and those with “advanced” disease (single tumor >2 cm or multifocal disease). Between January 2000 and December 2013, 81 patients were found to have an iCCA at explant; 33 had separate nodules of iCCA and hepatocellular carcinoma, and 48 had only iCCA (study group). Within the study group, 15/48 (31%) constituted the “very early” iCCA group and 33/48 (69%) the “advanced” group. There were no significant differences between groups in preoperative characteristics. At explant, the median size of the largest tumor was larger in the “advanced” group (3.1 [2.5‐4.4] versus 1.6 [1.5‐1.8]). After a median follow‐up of 35 (13.5‐76.4) months, the 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year cumulative risks of recurrence were, respectively, 7%, 18%, and 18% in the very early iCCA group versus 30%, 47%, and 61% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.01. The 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year actuarial survival rates were, respectively, 93%, 84%, and 65% in the very early iCCA group versus 79%, 50%, and 45% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.02. Conclusion: Patients with cirrhosis and very early iCCA may become candidates for liver transplantation; a prospective multicenter clinical trial is needed to further confirm these results. (H epatology 2016;64:1178‐1188)