Search

As the number of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplants (LTs) performed in the United States continues to increase annually, there has been interest by policy makers to develop a more robust exception point safety net for patients who develop ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) following DCD LT. As such, there is a need for better understanding of the clinical course and long-term outcomes in patients who develop IC, as well as determining if IC can be classified into distinct categories with distinctly different clinical outcomes.All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Clinic Arizona, and Mayo Clinic Rochester from January 1999 to March 2020 were included (N = 770). Outcomes were compared between 4 distinct radiologic patterns of IC: diffuse necrosis, multifocal progressive, confluence dominant, and minor form.In total, 88 (11.4%) patients developed IC, of which 42 (5.5%) were listed for retransplantation of liver (ReLT). Patients with diffuse necrosis and multifocal progressive patterns suffered from frequent hospital admissions for cholangitis in the first year following DCD LT (median 3 and 2), were largely stent dependent (100% and 85.7%), and almost universally required ReLT. Patients with confluence dominant disease were managed with multiple stents and frequently recovered, ultimately becoming stent free without need for ReLT. Patients with the minor form IC did well with limited need for stent placement or repeat procedures and did not require ReLT. Graft survival was different between the 4 distinct IC patterns (P 0.001).The present analysis provides a detailed analysis on the natural history and clinical course of IC. Patients developing IC can be classified into 4 distinct patterns with distinct clinical courses.

Background Neoadjuvant yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is increasingly being used as a strategy to facilitate resection of otherwise unresectable tumors due to its ability to generate both tumor response and remnant liver hypertrophy. Perioperative outcomes after the use of neoadjuvant lobar TARE remain underinvestigated. Methods A single center retrospective review of patients who underwent lobar TARE prior to major hepatectomy for primary or metastatic liver cancer between 2007 and 2018 was conducted. Baseline demographics, radioembolization parameters, pre- and post-radioembolization volumetrics, intra-operative surgical data, adverse events, and post-operative outcomes were analyzed. Results Twenty-six patients underwent major hepatectomy after neoadjuvant lobar TARE. The mean age was 58.3 years (17-88 years). 62% of patients (n=16) had primary liver malignancies while the remainder had metastatic disease. Liver resection included right hepatectomy or trisegmentectomy, left or extended left hepatectomy, and sectorectomy/segmentectomy in 77% (n=20), 8% (n=2), and 15% (n=4) of patients, respectively. The mean length of stay was 8.3 days (range, 3-33 days) and there were no grade IV morbidities or 90-day mortalities. The incidence of post hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) was 3.8% (n=1). The median time to progression after resection was 4.5 months (range, 3.3-10 months). Twenty-three percent (n=6) of patients had no recurrence. The median survival was 28.9 months (range, 16.9-46.8 months) from major hepatectomy and 37.6 months (range, 25.2-53.1 months) from TARE. Conclusions Major hepatectomy after neoadjuvant lobar radioembolization is safe with a low incidence of PHLF.

The number of steatotic deceased donor livers encountered has continued to rise as a result of the obesity epidemic. Little is known about the histological characteristics of moderately macrosteatotic livers over time in the recipient following liver transplantation (LT). All recipients undergoing LT at Mayo Clinic Florida with donor livers with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%) from 2000-2017 were identified (n = 96). Routine protocol liver biopsies were performed 1-week and 6-months following LT. All liver donor and protocol biopsies were read by an experienced liver pathologist. Of the 96 moderate macrosteatosis LTs, 70 recipients had post-LT protocol liver biopsies available and comprised the study cohort. Median donor allograft macrosteatosis at the time of transplant was 33% (IQR, 30%-40%) compared with 0% (IQR, 0%-2%) at 1-week (P < 0.001) and 0% (IQR, 0%-0%) at 6-months (P < 0.001) following LT. Biopsies at 1-week post-LT displayed pericentral necrosis in 57.1% of recipients and lipopeliosis in 34.3% of recipients. In the 6-month post-LT biopsies, cholestasis was seen in 3 (4.3%) of the recipients, whereas grade 2 fibrosis was seen in 6 recipients (8.6%). Graft survival at 5 years in the present cohort was 74.0%. Moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%) in the donor allograft demonstrates complete reversal on liver biopsies performed as early as 7 days following LT and remains absent at 6-months following LT. Both pericentral necrosis and lipopeliosis are common features on day 7 biopsies. Despite these encouraging findings, the perioperative risks of using these livers (postreperfusion cardiac arrest and primary nonfunction) should not be understated. Long-term graft survival is acceptable in patients who are able to overcome the immediate perioperative risk of using moderately steatotic donor livers.

Background The impact of additional resection for positive proximal bile duct margins during hepatic resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) on survival and disease progression remains unclear. We asked how re-resection of positive proximal bile duct margins affected outcomes. Methods Patients undergoing resection between 1993–2017 were reviewed. Both frozen section and final margin status were reviewed. Overall survival was the primary outcome. Results 153 patients underwent surgical resection for HCCA. Median survival (months) for initial margin negative (M−), margin-positive to margin-negative (M+/M−) and margin-positive to margin-positive (M+/M+) was 45, 33, and 35 months respectively. Nodal metastases increased with margin positivity: 32% with M−, 49% with M+/M− and 63% with M+/M+ (p = 0.016). Local/regional progression more frequently occurred in M+/M− (27.3%) and M+/M+ (33.3%) patients (M+/M- vs. M-: p = 0.41, M+/M+ vs. M-: p = 0.27). Patients receiving postoperative chemotherapy were 33% M−, 46% M+/M− and 63% in M+/M+. Postoperative radiation was used in 13% of M−, 31% of M+/M− and 63% of M+/M+. Most frequent initial recurrences were within the liver and hepaticojejunostomy site. Conclusion Competing risk for systemic disease based on primary characteristics of HCCA outweighs the impact of re-resection to achieve R0 status. Improved survival will likely depend on future regional and systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVE Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients have moderately increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). We evaluated the incidence and survival of PAC in 2 cohorts and aimed to identify potential risk factors. METHODS This study performed a retrospective cohort analysis. Cohort A was extracted from the United Network of Organ Sharing data set and cohort B from SOT recipients evaluated at 3 Mayo Clinic transplant centers. The primary outcome was age-adjusted annual incidence of PAC. Descriptive statistics, hazard ratios, and survival rates were compared. RESULTS Cohort A and cohort B included 617,042 and 29,472 SOT recipients, respectively. In cohort A, the annual incidence rate was 12.78 per 100,000 in kidney-pancreas, 13.34 in liver, and 21.87 in heart-lung transplant recipients. Receiving heart-lung transplant, 50 years or older, and history of cancer (in either recipient or donor) were independent factors associated with PAC. Fifty-two patients developed PAC in cohort B. Despite earlier diagnosis (21.15% with stage I-II), survival rates were similar to those reported for sporadic (non-SOT) patients. CONCLUSIONS We report demographic and clinical risk factors for PAC after SOT, many of which were present before transplant and are common to sporadic pancreatic cancer. Despite the diagnosis at earlier stages, PAC in SOT portends a very poor survival.

BACKGROUND Given the potentially additive risk from using donor livers that are both steatotic and from a donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor, there is a paucity of data on the outcome of DCD liver transplantation (LT) utilizing livers with macrosteatosis. METHODS All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 1999 to 2019 were included (N = 714). Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 3 groups: those with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%), mild macrosteatosis (5%-30%), and no steatosis (

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors represent a potential means to help address the disparity between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) and the availability of donor livers. While initial enthusiasm for DCD LT was high in the early 2000s, early reports of high rates of biliary complications and inferior graft survival resulted in reluctance among many transplant centers to use DCD liver grafts. As with all innovations in transplant practice, there is undoubtedly a learning curve associated with the optimal utilization of liver grafts from DCD donors. More contemporary data has demonstrated that results with DCD LT are improving and the number of DCD LT performed annually has been steadily increasing. In this concise review, potential mechanisms of injury for DCD livers are discussed along with strategies that have been employed in clinical practice to improve DCD LT outcomes.

BACKGROUND Opioids are associated with negative transplant outcomes. We sought to identify patient and center effects on over-prescribing of opioids (> 200 OME (oral morphine equivalents)). STUDY DESIGN Clinical and opioid prescription data (2014-2017) were collected from three academic transplant centers for kidney (KT), liver (LT), and simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) patients. Multivariable models were used to identify predictors of opioid over-prescribing at discharge and the occurrence of refill prescriptions at 90 days. RESULTS Three-thousand seven-hundred and two patients underwent transplant in the cohort (KT: n = 2358, LT: n = 1221, SLK: n = 123). More than 80% of recipients were over-prescribed opioids at discharge (Median OME (mOME) = 300 (IQR 225-375). LT and SLK had the largest prescription size (LT mOME 338 (IQR 300-450); SLK mOME 338 (IQR 225-450) and refill rate (LT: 64%, SLK 59%) (all, P

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts are commonly used in liver transplantation. Attributable to the additional ischemic event during the donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), DCD grafts carry an increased risk for severe ischemia/reperfusion injury and postoperative complications, such as ischemic cholangiopathy. The actual ischemia during DWIT depends on the course of vital parameters after withdrawal of life support and varies widely between donors. The ischemic period (functional DWIT) starts when either Spo2 or blood pressure drop below a certain point and lasts until the start of cold perfusion during organ retrieval. Over the years, multiple definitions and thresholds of functional DWIT duration have been used. The International Liver Transplantation Society organized a Consensus Conference on DCD, Liver Preservation, and Machine Perfusion on January 31, 2020 in Venice, Italy. The aim of this conference was to reach consensus about various aspects of DCD liver transplantation in context of currently available evidence. Here we present the recommendations with regards to the definitions used for DWIT and functional DWIT, the importance of vital parameters after withdrawal of life support, and acceptable thresholds of duration of functional DWIT to proceed with liver transplantation. ispartof: TRANSPLANTATION vol:105 issue:6 pages:1156-1164 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Better understanding of how to utilize donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts has resulted in improved national outcomes and expansion in the number of DCD liver transplants (LTs). This improvement has been driven by better donor and recipient matching, careful evaluation of hemodynamics during withdrawal of life support, and refinement of the procurement operation. Changes to liver allocation likely will result in increased utilization of DCD liver grafts. Ischemic cholangiopathy remains the Achilles heel of DCD LTs and, although rates have fallen with improved protocols, a certain rate likely is unavoidable. This review discusses contemporary issues with DCD LTs.

Liver grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) are a source of organs to decrease wait-list mortality. While there have been lower rates of graft loss, there are concerns of an increased incidence of intraoperative events in recipients of DCD grafts. We aim to look at the incidence of intraoperative events between recipients of livers from DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donors. We collected data for 235 DCD liver recipients between 2006 and 2017. We performed a 1:1 propensity match between these patients and patients with DBD donors. Variables included recipient age, liver disease etiology, biological Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, allocation MELD score, diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, and year of transplantation. DCD and DBD groups had no significant differences in incidence of postreperfusion syndrome (P = 0.75), arrhythmia requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P = 0.66), and treatments for hyperkalemia (P = 0.84). In the DCD group, there was a significant increase in amount of total intraoperative and postreperfusion blood products (with exception of postreperfusion packed red blood cells) utilized (P < 0.05 for all products), significant differences in postreperfusion thromboelastography parameters, as well as inotropes and vasopressors used (P < 0.05 for all infusions). There was no difference in patient (P = 0.49) and graft survival (P = 0.10) at 1, 3, and 5 years. In conclusion, DCD grafts compared with a cohort of DBD grafts have a similar low incidence of major intraoperative events, but increased incidence of transient vasopressor/inotropic usage and increased blood transfusion requirements. This does not result in differences in longterm outcomes. While centers should continue to look at DCD liver donors, they should be cognizant regarding intraoperative care to prevent adverse outcomes.

The impact of postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) during liver transplantation (LT) using donor livers with significant macrosteatosis is largely unknown. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing LT with donor livers with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%) (N = 96) between 2000 and 2017 were compared to propensity score matched cohorts of patients undergoing LT with donor livers with mild macrosteatosis (10%-29%) (N = 96) and no steatosis (N = 96). Cardiac arrest at the time of reperfusion was seen in eight (8.3%) of the patients in the moderate macrosteatosis group compared to one (1.0%) of the patients in the mild macrosteatosis group (P = .02) and zero (0%) of the patients in the no steatosis group (P = .004). Patients in the moderate macrosteatosis group had a higher rate of PRS (37.5% vs 18.8%; P = .004), early allograft dysfunction (EAD) (76.4% vs 25.8%; P

The frequency at which steatotic deceased donor liver grafts are encountered will likely continue to increase. Utilization of liver grafts with moderate-to-severe steatosis for liver transplantation (LT) has been previously shown to be associated with increased rates of primary nonfunction and decreased recipient survival. In order to better inform clinical decision making and guide future research, critical evaluation of the literature on donor liver steatosis and posttransplantation outcome is needed. This literature review aims to provide the "skinny" on using deceased donor steatotic livers for LT.

Pre-liver transplantation (LT) renal dysfunction is associated with poor post-LT survival. We studied whether early allograft dysfunction (EAD) modifies this association. Data on 2,856 primary LT recipients who received a transplant between 1998 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who died within the first post-LT week or received multiorgan transplants and previous LT recipients were excluded. EAD was defined as (1) total bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL on postoperative day (POD) 7, (2) international normalized ratio ≥1.6 on POD 7, and/or (3) alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase ≥2000 IU/mL in the first postoperative week. Pre-LT renal dysfunction was defined as serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL or on renal replacement therapy at LT. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to pre-LT renal dysfunction and post-LT EAD development. Recipients who had both pre-LT renal dysfunction and post-LT EAD had the worst unadjusted 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year post-LT patient and graft survival, whereas patients who had neither renal dysfunction nor EAD had the best survival (P

BACKGROUND: To identify the best possible outcomes in liver transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors (DCD) and to propose outcome values, which serve as reference for individual liver recipients or patient groups.METHODS: Based on 2219 controlled DCD liver transplantations, collected from 17 centres in North America and Europe, we identified 1012 low-risk, primary, adult liver transplantations with a laboratory MELD of ≤20points, receiving a DCD liver with a total donor warm ischemia time of ≤30minutes and asystolic donor warm ischemia time of ≤15minutes. Clinically relevant outcomes were selected and complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo-Grading and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Corresponding benchmark cut-offs were based on median values of each centre, where the 75th-percentile was considered.RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented between 19.7% and 75% of DCD transplantations in participating centers. The one-year retransplant and mortality rate was 5.23% and 9.01%, respectively. Within the first year of follow-up, 51.1% of recipients developed at least one major complication (≥Clavien-Dindo-Grade-III). Benchmark cut-offs were ≤3days and ≤16days for ICU and hospital stay, ≤66% for severe recipient complications (≥Grade-III), ≤16.8% for ischemic cholangiopathy, and ≤38.9CCI points at one-year posttransplant. Comparisons with higher risk groups showed more complications and impaired graft survival, outside the benchmark cut-offs. Organ perfusion techniques reduced the complications to values below benchmark cut-offs, despite higher graft risk.CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high with more than half of recipients developing severe complications during 1-year follow-up. Benchmark cut-offs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess the protective value of new preservation technologies in higher risk groups, and provide a valid comparator cohort for future clinical trials.LAY SUMMARY: The best possible outcomes after liver transplantation of grafts donated after circulatory death (DCD) were defined using the concept of benchmarking. These were based on 2219 liver transplantations following controlled DCD donation in 17 centres worldwide. The following benchmark cut-offs for the most relevant outcome parameters were developed: ICU and hospital stay: ≤3 and ≤16 days; primary non function: ≤2.5%; renal replacement therapy: ≤9.6%; ischemic cholangiopathy: ≤16.8% and anastomotic strictures ≤28.4%. One-year graft loss and mortality were defined as ≤14.4% and 9.6%, respectively. Donor and recipient combinations with higher risk had significantly worse outcomes. The use of novel organ perfusion technology achieved similar, good results in this high-risk group with prolonged donor warm ischemia time, when compared to the benchmark cohort.

BackgroundCombined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma liver tumors (cHCC-CCA) with pathologic differentiation of both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma within the same tumor are not traditionally considered for liver transplantation due to perceived poor outcomes. Published results are from small cohorts and single centers. Through a multicenter collaboration, we performed the largest analysis to date of the utility of liver transplantation for cHCC-CCA.Study designLiver transplant and resection outcomes for HCC (n= 2,998) and cHCC-CCA (n= 208) were compared in a 12-center retrospective review (2009 to 2017). Pathology defined tumor type. Tumor burden was based on radiologic Milan criteria at time of diagnosis and applied to cHCC-CCA for uniform analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank test were used to determine overall survival and disease-free survival. Cox regression was used for multivariate survival analysis.ResultsLiver transplantation for cHCC-CCA (n= 67) and HCC (n= 1,814) within Milan had no significant difference in overall survival (5-year cHCC-CCA 70.1%, HCC 73.4%, p=0.806), despite higher cHCC-CCA recurrence rates (23.1% vs 11.5% 5 years, p&nbsp

Introduction and Objectives: Renal dysfunction before liver transplantation (LT) is associated with higher post-LT mortality. We aimed to study if this association still persisted in the contemporary transplant era. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data on 2871 primary LT performed at our center from 1998 to 2018. All patients were listed for LT alone and were not considered to be simultaneous liver–kidney (SLK) transplant candidates. SLK recipients and those with previous LT were excluded. Patients were grouped into 4 eras: era-1 (1998–2002, n = 488), era-2 (2003–2007, n = 889), era-3 (2008–2012, n = 703) and era-4 (2013–2018, n = 791). Pre-LT renal dysfunction was defined as creatinine (Cr) >1.5 mg/dl or on dialysis at LT. The effect of pre-LT renal dysfunction on post-LT patient survival in each era was examined using Kaplan Meier estimates and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Results: Pre-LT renal dysfunction was present in 594 (20%) recipients. Compared to patients in era-1, patients in era-4 had higher Cr, lower eGFR and were more likely to be on dialysis at LT (P

PURPOSE To evaluate the pathologic outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with Yttrium-90 radiation segmentectomy using glass microspheres prior to liver transplantation and explore parameters associated with pathologic necrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS A single-institution retrospective analysis of HCC patients who received radiation segmentectomy prior to liver transplantation from November 2016 to May 2020 was performed. Patients were included if the treatment angiosome encompassed the entire tumor and could be correlated with available gross pathology. Archived histology slides were reviewed for percentage of pathologic necrosis. Thirty-three patients with 37 tumors were evaluated. The median tumor size was 2.3 cm (range, 1-6.7 cm). RESULTS All tumors received a single treatment. The median time from radiation segmentectomy to transplantation was 206 days (range, 58-550 days). Objective response per Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was 92% (complete response, 76%; partial response, 16%). A total of 68% (n = 25) of tumors demonstrated ≥99% pathologic necrosis. Complete pathologic necrosis was present in 53% and 75% of tumors treated with >190 Gy (n = 18) and >500 Gy (n = 8) single-compartment Medical Internal Radiation Dose, respectively. Complete response per mRECIST, posttreatment angiosome T1 hypointensity, dose >190 Gy, microsphere specific activity >297 Bq, and a longer time between treatment and transplant were associated with ≥99% tumor necrosis (P < .05). No posttransplant tumor recurrences occurred within a median follow-up of 604 days (range, 138-1,223 days). CONCLUSIONS Radiation segmentectomy can serve as an ablative modality for the treatment of HCC prior to liver transplant.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation is currently being performed in the United States as part of a clinical trial. As with all donor procurements, effective coordination between all involved teams is vital for successful organ recovery and maximal utilization of donor organs. The current discussion relays a viewpoint on combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement. Key issues highlighted include the vital importance of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) on outcome for both recipients as well as issues pertaining to DWIT that may arise when performing combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) at the time of liver transplant (LT) has been argued to decrease resource utilization. However, larger studies examining outcomes are lacking. We aim to determine the outcomes of simultaneous SG and LT compared to LT alone. This is a retrospective cohort study using the 2011-2017 National Inpatient Sample (NIS). The primary outcome was the odds of inpatient mortality in patients undergoing simultaneous SG and LT compared with LT alone. Secondary outcomes included inpatient morbidity, resource utilization, hospital length of stay (LOS), and inflation-adjusted total hospital costs and charges. A total of 45 361 patients underwent LT in the study period, 49 underwent simultaneous SG. Patients undergoing simultaneous LT and SG had lower crude mortality (0.0%) compared to LT alone (2.97%; P = 0.52). There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity, resource utilization, and hospital costs and charges. Patients undergoing simultaneous LT and SG did not have significantly different mortality rates, morbidity, resource utilization, or LOS during the index admission when compared to LT alone. SG may be feasible at the time of LT in very carefully selected patients. Studies should focus in determining which patients are the optimal candidates to undergo simultaneous LT and SG.

Throughout the world, the practice of organ donation for transplantation is governed by the dead donor rule, that is, non-paired vital organs can be retrieved only from patients who are dead. While this principle is constant, the specifics surrounding the laws and cultural practices relating to death and organ donation vary significantly between countries. Key ethical concepts include autonomy, non-maleficence, futility, equity, and utility. This chapter covers a number of ethical considerations encountered with DCD liver transplantation including timing of the decision to withdrawal treatment in patients who may be potential donors, donor treatment prior to death, site for withdrawal of treatment, declaration of death, and stand-off time prior to starting retrieval and organ allocation/sharing. This chapter also provides country-specific information on both laws and practices surrounding DCD organ donation.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors differ from donation after brain death (DBD) donors in that they experience a period of obligatory donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) prior to initiation of cold perfusion of organs. While most authors agree that prolonged DWIT results in hepatic ischemic injury, debate exists on the length of DWIT or hemodynamic parameters following withdrawal of life support that determine whether a liver graft can be used with reasonable safety. As such, the concept of a functional warm ischemia time (f-DWIT) arose from the notion that individual events during DCD procurement, such as variations in hemodynamics, mandatory wait period, and time from incision to cannulation of the aorta and cross clamp, all of which are included in total DWIT, may have different impact on the outcome of the liver graft. The present chapter reviews the various definitions relevant to warm ischemia time in liver transplantation using DCD donors in an attempt to clarify the existing ambiguity. The chapter also provides a comprehensive view of the literature by describing studies that have investigated various parameters of warm ischemia time and their associations with outcomes following liver transplant using DCD donors, such as graft failure and ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Finally the chapter reviews potential reasons for the variability in previous studies as well as discusses the limitations associated with using various hemodynamic parameters to evaluate hepatic ischemic injury.

Background Pancreatectomy with arterial resection (AR) is performed infrequently. As indications evolve, we evaluated indications, outcomes, and predictors of mortality, morbidity, and survival after AR. Study Design We performed a single-institution review of elective pancreatectomies with AR (from July1990 to July 2017). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for predictors of outcomes and survival. Results A total of 111 patients underwent pancreatectomy with AR including any hepatic (54%), any celiac (44%), any superior mesenteric (14%), or multiple ARs (14%), with revascularization in 55%. The majority of cases were planned (77%) and performed post-2010 (78%). Overall 90-day major morbidity (≥grade III) and mortality were 54% and 13%, respectively, due to post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), or ischemia in the majority of cases. There was a significant decrease in mortality post-2010 (9% vs 29%, p = 0.02), and this was protective on multivariate analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0.1, p = 0.004); PPH increased mortality (OR 6.1, p Conclusions Regardless of indication or type, pancreatectomy with AR is associated with risks greater than standard resections. Mortality has decreased in the modern era; however, morbidity remains high from hemorrhagic, fistula, or ischemia-related complications. Mitigation measures are needed if advanced resections are considered with increasing frequency given the potential oncologic benefit of AR in selected cases after modern chemotherapy.

Background. Aorto-hepatic conduits can provide arterial inflow for liver transplants in cases where the native hepatic artery is unsuitable for use. Methods. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with an aorto-hepatic conduit between 2000 and 2016 were included. Recipients were divided into 2 groups: those with a supraceliac (SC) aortic conduit (N = 22) and those with an infrarenal (IR) aortic conduit (N = 82). Results. There was no difference in calculated model for end-stage liver disease score between the 2 groups. The SC group received grafts with a higher mean donor risk index (1.69 versus 1.48; P = 0.02). Early allograft dysfunction was 18.2% in the SC group and 29.3% in the IR group (P = 0.30). In the SC group, 10.5% of patients required initiation of postoperative continuous renal replacement therapy compared to 12.1% of patients in the IR group (P = 0.69). No difference in the rate of postoperative acute kidney injury was seen between the 2 groups (P = 0.54). No significant difference in median creatinine at 1 year was seen between the SC (1.2 mg/dL; IQR 1–1.3) and IR (1.2 mg/dL; IQR 0.9–1.5) groups (P = 0.85). At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, thrombosis of the aortic conduit occurred in 0% of patients in the SC group and 6.1% of patients in the IR group (P = 0.24). Graft survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.47). Conclusions. No difference in renal dysfunction as demonstrated by need for post-LT continuous renal replacement therapy, acute kidney injury, or creatinine at 1 year post-LT was seen between SC and IR aortic conduits. A slight trend of higher conduit thrombosis rate was seen with IR compared to SC aortic conduits; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Both SC and IR aortic conduits represent reasonable options when the native hepatic artery is unsuitable for use.

Although hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become a common indication for liver transplantation (LT), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) are historically contraindicated due to their aggressive behavior. On the basis of recent experiences, some groups have proposed a clinical trial investigating the role of LT for patients with early cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), defined as a single lesion ≤ 2 cm. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinicopathologic features and outcomes following LT for patients who were initially diagnosed with HCC and subsequently found to have either ICC or cHCC-CCA on explant. Patients with the diagnosis of primary liver cancer (PLC) after LT from a single center were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes for patients with early CCA were compared with patients with HCC within Milan criteria (MC). Out of 618 patients transplanted with PLC, 44 patients were found to have CCA on explant. On the basis of preoperative imaging, 12 patients met criteria for early CCA and were compared with 319 patients who had HCC within MC. The 1- and 5-year overall survival for early CCA versus HCC was 63.6% versus 90.0% and 63.6% versus 70.3% (log-rank, P = 0.25), respectively. Overall recurrence was 33.3% for early CCA versus 11% for HCC. On explant the patients with CCA were more likely understaged with higher tumor grade and vascular invasion. In conclusion, patients with CCA present a diagnostic challenge, which often leads to the finding of more aggressive lesions on explant after LT, higher recurrence rates, and worse post-LT survival. Careful consideration of this diagnostic conundrum needs to be made before a clinical trial is undertaken. Liver Transplantation 24 634-644 2018 AASLD.

Understanding of outcomes for patients relisted for ischemic cholangiopathy following a donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplant (LT) will help standardization of a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception scheme for retransplantation. Early relisting (E-RL) for DCD graft failure caused by primary nonfunction (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) was defined as relisting ≤14 days after DCD LT, and late relisting (L-RL) due to biliary complications was defined as relisting 14 days to 3 years after DCD LT. Of 3908 DCD LTs performed nationally between 2002 and 2016, 540 (13.8%) patients were relisted within 3 years of transplant (168 [4.3%] in the E-RL group, 372 [9.5%] in the L-RL group). The E-RL and L-RL groups had waitlist mortality rates of 15.4% and 10.5%, respectively, at 3 mo and 16.1% and 14.3%, respectively, at 1 year. Waitlist mortality in the L-RL group was higher than mortality and delisted rates for patients with exception points for both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) at 3- to 12-mo time points (p < 0.001). Waitlist outcomes differed in patients with early DCD graft failure caused by PNF or HAT compared with those with late DCD graft failure attributed to biliary complications. In L-RL, higher rates of waitlist mortality were noted compared with patients listed with exception points for HCC or HPS.

Organ procurement organization (OPO) performance is generally evaluated by the number of organ procurement procedures divided by the number of eligible deaths (donation after brain death [DBD] donors aged70 years), whereas the number of noneligible deaths (including donation after cardiac death donors and DBD donors aged70 years) is not tracked. The present study aimed to investigate the variability in the proportion of noneligible liver donors by the 58 donor service areas (DSAs). Patients undergoing liver transplant (LT) between 2011 and 2015 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file. LTs from noneligible and eligible donors were compared. The proportion of noneligible liver donors by DSA varied significantly, ranging from 0% to 19.6% of total liver grafts used. In transplant programs, the proportion of noneligible liver donors used ranged from 0% to 35.3%. On linear regression there was no correlation between match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score for programs in a given DSA and proportion of noneligible donors used from the corresponding DSA (p = 0.14). Noneligible donors remain an underutilized resource in many OPOs. Policy changes to begin tracking noneligible donors and learning from OPOs that have high noneligible donor usage are potential strategies to increase awareness and pursuit of these organs.

In the United States, 5% of adult liver transplant recipients receive a graft donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD). Concerns for ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), a disease of diffuse intrahepatic stricturing limits broader DCDD use. Single-center reports demonstrate large variation in outcomes.Retrospective deidentified data collected between 2005 and 2013 were entered electronically by 10 centers via a Research Electronic Data Capture database. Our primary outcome was development of intrahepatic biliary strictures consistent with IC.Within 6 months post-DCDD transplant, 162 (21.8%) patients developed a biliary stricture, of which 88 (11.8%) exhibited intrahepatic structuring consistent with IC. Unadjusted 6-month IC rate among the 10 centers varied significantly (P = 0.006) from 6.3% to 25.9%. The only factor associated with increased risk of IC within 6 months was Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (vs duct-to-duct) (odds ratio, 3.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-6.16; P = 0.002). Graft failure by 6 months was more than 3 times higher for DCDD recipients with IC (odds ratio for IC, 3.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-5.79).This first report of the large combined experience with DCDD from the Improving DCDD Outcomes in Liver Transplant consortium demonstrates significant differences in IC among centers, the importance of biliary strictures as a risk factor for graft failure, and does not validate other risk factors for IC found in smaller studies.

Background: The use of liver grafts from donation after cardiac death donors (DCD LT) has been limited due to the increased rate of graft failure, mostly related to ischemic cholangiopathy(IC). It is our hypothesis that long term outcomes and quality of life similar to patients undergoing liver transplantation with donation after brain death donors (DBD LT) can be achieved. Methods: Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing DCD LT (n = 300) between 1998-2015 were compared to a propensity score matched cohort of patients undergoing DBD LT (n = 300). Patients were contacted for a follow-up questionnaire and SF-12 Quality of Life Survey administration. All patients had at least 1 year follow-up. Results: Graft survival at 1-,3- and 5-years was 83.8%,75.5% and 70.1% in the DCD LT group and 88.4%,80.3% and 73.9% in the DBD LT group (p = 0.27). Patient survival at 1-,3- and 5-years was 92.3%, 86.1% and 80.3% in the DCD LT group and 92.3%,85.1% and 79.5% in the DBD LT group(p = 0.81). IC developed in 12% and 2% of patients in the DCD LT group and DBD LT group, respectively (p

Published reports describing the national experience with liver grafts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors have resulted in reservations with their widespread utilization. The present study aimed to investigate if temporal improvements in outcomes have been observed on a national level and to determine if donor and recipient selection have been modified in a fashion consistent with published data on DCD use in liver transplantation (LT).Patients undergoing DCD LT between 2003 and 2014 were obtained from the United Network of Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file and divided into 3 equal eras based on the date of DCD LT: era 1 (2003-2006), era 2 (2007-2010), and era 3 (2011-2014).Improvement in graft survival was seen between era 1 and era 2 (P = 0.001) and between era 2 and era 3 (P0.001). Concurrently, an increase in the proportion of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and a decrease in critically ill patients, retransplant recipients, donor age, warm ischemia time greater than 30 minutes and cold ischemic time also occurred over the same period. On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of graft survival included: recipient age, biologic MELD score, recipient on ventilator, recipient hepatitis C virus + serology, donor age and cold ischemic time. In addition, even after adjustment for all of the aforementioned variables, both era 2 (hazard ratio, 0.81; confidence interval, 0.69-0.94; P = 0.007), and era 3 (hazard ratio, 0.61; confidence interval, 0.5-0.73; P0.001) had a protective effect compared to era 1.The national outcomes for DCD LT have improved over the last 12 years. This change was associated with modifications in both recipient and donor selection. Furthermore, an era effect was observed, even after adjustment for all recipient and donor variables on multivariate analysis.

Previous large registry studies have demonstrated inferior outcomes for simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors compared with those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors in the era from 2000 to 2010. Given the improving national results in liver transplantation alone using grafts from DCD donors, the present study aimed to investigate if results with DCD-SLKT have improved in the modern era. Patients undergoing SLKT between 2000 and 2018 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file and divided into 2 eras based on the date of SLKT: era 1 (2000-2010) and era 2 (2011-2018). Improvement in DCD-SLKT patient, liver graft, and kidney graft survival rates was seen between era 1 and era 2 (P < 0.001). Concurrently, there was a decrease in the proportion of critically ill (P = 0.02) and retransplant (P = 0.006) candidates undergoing DCD-SLKT. When DCD-SLKT in era 2 was compared with a propensity-matched cohort of DBD-SLKT in era 2, no differences in patient (P = 0.99), liver graft (P = 0.19), or kidney graft (P = 0.90) survival were observed. In addition, both bilirubin (0.5 versus 0.5 mg/dL; P = 0.86) and creatinine (1.2 versus 1.2 mg/dL; P = 0.68) at last follow-up were not different between the DCD-SLKT and DBD-SLKT patients in era 2. In conclusion, in the most recent era, patients undergoing DCD-SLKT were able to achieve similar outcomes compared with matched patients undergoing DBD-SLKT. DCD-SLKT represents a viable option for appropriately selected recipients.

Renal dysfunction is common in liver transplantation (LT) candidates, but differentiating between reversible and irreversible renal injury can be difficult. Kidney biopsy might be helpful in differentiating reversible from irreversible renal injury, but it is associated with significant complications. We aimed to identify pre-LT predictors of potentially reversible renal injury using histological information obtained on pre-LT renal biopsy. Data on 128 LT candidates who underwent pre-LT kidney biopsy were retrospectively collected and correlated with renal histological findings. Indications for kidney biopsy were iothalamate glomerular filtration rate (iGFR) ≤40 mL/minute, proteinuria >500 mg/day, and/or hematuria. According to the biopsy diagnosis, patients were grouped into the following categories: normal (n = 13); acute tubular necrosis (ATN; n = 25); membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (n = 19); minimal histological changes (n = 24); and advanced interstitial fibrosis (IF) and glomerulosclerosis (GS) (n = 47). Compared with patients having advanced IF/GS, patients with normal biopsies and those with ATN had lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and higher international normalized ratio and total bilirubin levels (

Background: Fast-tracking is an approach adopted by Mayo Clinic in Florida’s (MCF) liver transplant (LT) program, which consists of early tracheal extubation and transfer of patients to surgical wa...

It has been suggested that microsteatosis does not negatively impact graft survival following liver transplantation (LT). The present study represents the largest series on donor livers with significant microsteatosis and investigates the impact of microsteatosis on perioperative factors such as postreperfusion syndrome (PRS), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and postoperative renal dysfunction. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing LT with donor livers with isolated microsteatosis (≥30%; n = 239) between 2000 and 2017 were compared with a propensity score-matched cohort of patients undergoing LT with donor livers with no steatosis (n = 239). Patients in the microsteatosis group had a higher rate of PRS (33.1% versus 24.2%; P = 0.03), EAD (38.2% versus 23.0%; P

Background. Individuals after solid organ transplant may develop secondary malignancies. In our clinical practice, we noted an increasing number of individuals who developed colorectal cancers after solid organ transplantation. The primary aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of the patients who developed colorectal cancer after solid organ transplant. Materials and Methods. Data was gathered and merged from several registries at Mayo Clinic to identify all patients who received a diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer and solid organ transplant. Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) and median (range), while categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Time to colorectal cancer after transplant and overall survival after cancer diagnosis were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Results. Initially, 115 colorectal cancer patients who also had a transplant were identified. The diagnosis of colorectal cancer was noted after solid organ transplant in 63 patients. The mean age at transplant was 57 years. Majority had received a kidney transplant (44.4%) followed by liver (36.5%). The median time to develop colorectal cancer was 59.3 months (range: 4.4-251.4 months). 15 (24.6%) were stage 4 at diagnosis and 13 (21.3%) had stage 3 colorectal cancer. Median overall survival was 30.8 months; 5-, 10- and 15-year survival were noted to be 42.5%, 17.9%, and 7.5%, respectively. None of the stage 4 patients were alive at 5 years; 5-year survival rate for stage 1, 2, and 3 patients was 77%, 50%, and 42%, respectively. Conclusions. Our study reports on one of the largest cohorts of patients of colorectal cancer that developed the cancer after solid organ transplant. Survival is extremely poor for advanced cases. However, long-term survivors are noted who developed the cancer at a relatively early stage. Colorectal screening recommendations may need to be revised for patients after solid organ transplant.

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a chronic, cholestatic liver disease of unknown cause characterized by diffuse inflammation and fibrosis of intrahepatic and/or extrahepatic bile ducts. PSC is ultimately progressive, leading to obliteration of the biliary tree and subsequently to biliary cirrhosis. Surgical management of PSC can be undertaken in both the setting of benign and malignant complications of the disease. Endoscopic dilatation and stenting is the optimal initial treatment of symptomatic dominant biliary strictures. Liver transplantation has demonstrated excellent results for patients with advanced PSC. Patients with PSC have a 10% to 15% lifetime risk of developing cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Liver transplantation has demonstrated excellent results for select patients with hilar CCA undergoing established protocols involving neoadjuvant chemoradiation, while liver resection can be indicated in the setting of both intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Although there is an agreement that liver grafts from pediatric donors (PDs) should ideally be used for pediatric patients, there remain situations when these grafts are turned down for pediatric recipients and are then offered to adult recipients. The present study aimed to investigate the outcomes of using these grafts for liver transplantation (LT) in adult patients. Data from all patients undergoing LT between 2002 and 2014 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file. Adult recipients undergoing LT were divided into 2 groups: those receiving a pediatric liver graft (pediatric-to-adult group) and those receiving a liver graft from adult donors (adult-to-adult group). A separate subgroup analysis comparing the PDs used for adult recipients and those used for pediatric recipients was also performed. Patient and graft survival were not significantly different between pediatric-to-adult and adult-to-adult groups (P = 0.08 and P = 0.21, respectively). Hepatic artery thrombosis as the cause for graft loss was higher in the pediatric-to-adult group (3.6%) than the adult-to-adult group (1.9%; P

Efficacy and outcomes of resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) are well established; specific data on outcomes for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), either alone or with combined procedures, are limited. A retrospective review of PDs for pNET (1998–2014) at our institution was conducted. Patients were categorized into standard PD (SPD) alone or combined PD (CPD) defined as patients undergoing concurrent vascular reconstruction or additional organ resection for curative intent. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed. PD for pNET was performed for 95 patients. Tumors were functional in 11 patients (9 %). Twenty-six patients (28 %) underwent CPD. The 30/90-day mortality was 1.1/5.3 % respectively and similar between SPD and CPD (p = 0.61/p = 0.24). Five-year overall survival after PD for pNET was 85.1/71.9 % and similar between SPD/CPD groups (p = 0.17). Recurrence-free and overall survival for low-grade tumors was 74.7/93.9 % at 5 years compared to only 14.8/49.7 % for high-grade tumors (p < 0.001) and not predicted by extent of resection (SPD/CPD, respectively). PD with or without concurrent resection provides an acceptable, perioperative and long-term oncologic, outcome for pNET. CPD is justified treatment modality, particularly for patients with low-grade tumors. The need for combinatorial procedures during PD is not contraindication alone for otherwise resectable patients with pNET.

Background Publications using the ALPPS (associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for a staged hepatectomy) procedure have demonstrated a future liver remnant growth of 40–160% in only 6–9 days. The present study aimed to develop and describe the first large animal model of ALPPS that can be used for future studies. Methods A total of 13 female domestic pigs underwent ALPPS stage 1 (portal vein division and parenchymal transection) followed by ALPPS stage 2 (completion left‐extended hepatectomy) 7 days later. An abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan was performed immediately prior to ALPPS stage 1 surgery and again 7 days later to assess hypertrophy immediately prior to ALPPS stage 2 surgery. Blood samples, as well as tissue analysis for Ki‐67, were performed. Results On CT volumetric analysis, the mean size of the future liver remnant (FLR) prior to ALPPS stage 1 was 21 ± 2% and 40 ± 6% prior to ALPPS stage 2. The median degree of growth was 75% with a mean kinetic growth rate of 11% per day. Liver weights at autopsy correlated well with CT volumetric analysis ( r = 0.87). There was no significant difference in mean lab values [asparate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), ammonia, International Normalized Ratio (INR) or bilirubin] from baseline until immediately prior to ALPPS stage 2. Post ALPPS stage 2 there was a significant increase in INR from baseline 1.1 to 1.6 ( P = 0.012). No post‐operative deaths secondary to liver failure were observed. Conclusion The present study describes the first reproducible large animal model of the ALPPS procedure. The degree of liver growth and the kinetic rate of growth were similar to that which has been demonstrated in human publications. This model will be valuable as future laboratory studies are performed.

Although the consequences of implantation of a large whole liver graft into a small recipient such as compression and compromise of graft perfusion are well known, no accepted measure to aid in donor-to-recipient size matching exists. Donor liver graft and recipient native liver weights as well as donor and recipient size and amount of ascites were investigated in 1953 patients who underwent liver transplantation using deceased donor grafts between January 2002 and July 2013. We used a previously described formula for liver resections (standardized total liver volume [sTLV] = -794.41 + 1267.28 × body surface area [m(2)]) for calculating sTLV, in the current cohort of deceased liver donors. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and graft survival were the primary outcome measures. The formula for calculating sTLV for liver resections was validated as an accurate predictor of liver volume in the current cohort of deceased liver donors (r(2) = 0.45; P

BACKGROUND The present multicenter study investigated whether equivalent outcomes to primary liver transplant (LT) could be achieved with liver retransplant (reLT) and whether improvements in outcomes have taken place over time, particularly in the direct-acting antiviral era. METHODS All reLT performed at Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Clinic Rochester, and Mayo Clinic Arizona were divided into era 1 (2002-2007), era 2 (2008-2012), and era 3 (2013-2017) based on the date of reLT. RESULTS Improvement in graft survival (GS) after reLT was seen over the 3 eras (P < 0.001). In era 1, GS after reLT was inferior to primary LT (P < 0.001), whereas no difference was seen between reLT and primary LT in era 2 (P = 0.68) or era 3 (P = 0.36). A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved sustained viral response (SVR) within the first year after reLT in each subsequent era (era 1: 10.3%, era 2: 22.5%, and era 3: 100%) (P < 0.001). Graft survival was superior in patients undergoing reLT for recurrent hepatitis C virus who achieved SVR after reLT compared with those who did not (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Results similar to primary LT were achieved in era 3. These improvements coincide with the availability of direct-acting antivirals, which resulted in a 100% SVR rate in era 3 and a decrease in the number of patients undergoing reLT for recurrent hepatitis C virus. The historic dogma that reLT results in inferior outcomes should be revisited.

BACKGROUND: As the population in the United States continues to age, an increase in the number of potential donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors with advanced chronological age can be expected. The aim of this study was to analyze a multi-institutional experience in liver transplantation using DCD donors 50 years or older. METHODS: All DCD liver transplant (LT) performed at Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Clinic Rochester, and Mayo Clinic Arizona from 2002 to 2016 were included. Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 2 groups: those with donors 50 years or older (N = 155) and those with donors younger than 50 years(N = 316). RESULTS: Graft survival was similar between the DCD donors 50 years or older group and DCD donors younger than 50 group(P = 0.99). Graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 87.0%, 75.6%, and 71.8% in the DCD donors 50 years or older group and 85.8%, 76.0%, and 70.4% in the DCD donors younger than 50 group. The rate of total biliary complications (32.3% vs 23.7%; P = 0.049) and of anastomotic strictures (16.1% vs 8.2%; P = 0.01) were higher in the DCD donors 50 years or older compared with the DCD donors younger than 50 group. No statistical significant difference in the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy (11.6% vs 7.6%; P = 0.15) was seen between the 2 groups. Due to homogeneous practice patterns at the involved institutions, additional Cox regression analysis using national data obtained from Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was used to evaluate predictors of graft failure in DCD donors 50 years or older. Significant predictors of graft failure included: a calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 30 or higher (P < 0.001), mechanical ventilation at the time of transplant (P < 0.001), medical condition (in intensive care unit) (P = 0.002), and cold ischemia time (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that acceptable graft and patient survival can be achieved with the usage of DCD LT with donors 50 years or older. Optimizing recipient selection criteria and minimizing cold ischemia time may further improve outcomes.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text., Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) identifies allografts with marginal function soon after liver transplantation (LT) and is associated with poor LT outcomes. The impact of EAD on post-LT renal recovery, however, has not been studied. Data on 69 primary LT recipients (41 with and 28 without history of renal dysfunction) who received renal replacement therapy (RRT) for a median (range) of 9 (13-41) days before LT were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was renal nonrecovery defined as RRT requirement 30 days from LT. Early allograft dysfunction developed in 21 (30%) patients, and 22 (32%) patients did not recover renal function. Early allograft dysfunction was more common in the renal nonrecovery group (50% vs 21%, P = 0.016). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that EAD (odds ratio, 7.25; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-25.8; P = 0.002) and baseline serum creatinine (odds ratio, 3.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-8.1; P = 0.007) were independently associated with renal nonrecovery. History of renal dysfunction, duration of renal dysfunction, and duration of RRT were not related to renal recovery (P > 0.2 for all). Patients who had EAD and renal nonrecovery had the worst 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival, whereas those without EAD and recovered renal function had the best outcomes (P < 0.001). Post-LT EAD was independently associated with renal nonrecovery in LT recipients on RRT for a short duration before LT. Furthermore, EAD in the setting of renal nonrecovery resulted in the worst long-term survival. Measures to prevent EAD should be undertaken in LT recipients on RRT at time of LT.

Variation in average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at liver transplantation (LT) by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) regions is well documented. The present study aimed to investigate MELD variation at the interregional, intraregional, and intra-donation service area (DSA) levels. Patients undergoing LT between 2015 and 2016 were obtained from the UNOS standard analysis and research file. The distribution of allocation MELD score including median, skew, and kurtosis was examined for all transplant programs. Intraregional median allocation MELD varied significantly within all 11 UNOS regions. The largest variation between programs was seen in region 5 (MELD 24.0 versus 38.5) and region 3 (MELD 20.5 versus 32.0). Regions 1, 5, and 9 had the largest proportion of programs with a highly negative skewed MELD score (50%, 57%, and 57%, respectively), whereas regions 3, 6, 10, and 11 did not have any programs with a highly negative skew. MELD score distribution was also examined in programs located in the same DSA, where no barriers exist and theoretically no significant difference in allocation should be observed. The largest DSA variation in median allocation MELD score was seen in NYRT-OP1 LiveOnNY (MELD score variation 11), AZOB-OP1 Donor Network of Arizona (MELD score variation 11), MAOB-OP1 New England Organ Bank (MELD score variation 9), and TXGC-OP1 LifeGift Organ Donation Ctr (MELD score variation 9). In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that this MELD disparity is not only present at the interregional level but can be seen within regions and even within DSAs between programs located as close as several city blocks away. Although organ availability likely accounts for a component of this disparity, the present study suggests that transplant center behavior may also play a significant role. Liver Transplantation 24 488-496 2018 AASLD.