INTRODUCTION: The use of extended criteria donors (ECDs) could minimize shortage of suitable donor livers for transplantation. In 3 years, the aggressive use of ECD livers has reduced the wait list at our center from 257 to 30 patients with a median wait time of 18 days without using living donors. This study compares the graft/patient survival from standard (SD) and ECD for our transplant population between 2001 and 2005. METHODS: Records of all adult liver transplant recipients over 4 years were reviewed (n = 571). ECD criteria included: age >59 years, BMI >34.9, maximum AST/ALT >500, maximum bilirubin >2.0, peak serum sodium >170, HBV/HCV/HTLV reactive, donation after cardiac death, cold ischemia time >12 hours, ICU stay >5 days, 3 or more pressors simultaneously, extensive alcohol abuse, cancer history (nonskin), active meningitis/bacteremia, or significant donor liver trauma. Outcomes included graft and patient survival at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of recipients (n = 388) received ECD livers. Primary factors accounting for ECD-liver status included: elevated liver function tests (20%), hypernatremia (12.6%), and extensive alcohol abuse (11.4%). Graft survival was (SD, ECD): 90-day 91%, 88%; 1-year 84%, 80%; 2-year 78%, 77%; patient survival was: 90-day 93%, 90%; 1-year 87%, 82%; 2-year 83%, 79%. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis failed to demonstrate an overall difference in graft or patient survival at any time point. Only donor age >60 years was associated with decreased graft and patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: Liver grafts from ECD can be used to dramatically reduce wait list time with outcomes comparable to those for SD without resorting to living donor liver transplantation.
INTRODUCTION: The use of extended criteria donors (ECDs) could minimize shortage of suitable donor livers for transplantation. In 3 years, the aggressive use of ECD livers has reduced the wait list at our center from 257 to 30 patients with a median wait time of 18 days without using living donors. This study compares the graft/patient survival from standard (SD) and ECD for our transplant population between 2001 and 2005. METHODS: Records of all adult liver transplant recipients over 4 years were reviewed (n = 571). ECD criteria included: age >59 years, BMI >34.9, maximum AST/ALT >500, maximum bilirubin >2.0, peak serum sodium >170, HBV/HCV/HTLV reactive, donation after cardiac death, cold ischemia time >12 hours, ICU stay >5 days, 3 or more pressors simultaneously, extensive alcohol abuse, cancer history (nonskin), active meningitis/bacteremia, or significant donorliver trauma. Outcomes included graft and patient survival at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of recipients (n = 388) received ECD livers. Primary factors accounting for ECD-liver status included: elevated liver function tests (20%), hypernatremia (12.6%), and extensive alcohol abuse (11.4%). Graft survival was (SD, ECD): 90-day 91%, 88%; 1-year 84%, 80%; 2-year 78%, 77%; patient survival was: 90-day 93%, 90%; 1-year 87%, 82%; 2-year 83%, 79%. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis failed to demonstrate an overall difference in graft or patient survival at any time point. Only donor age >60 years was associated with decreased graft and patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: Liver grafts from ECD can be used to dramatically reduce wait list time with outcomes comparable to those for SD without resorting to living donor liver transplantation.
Authors: David P Foley; Luis A Fernandez; Glen Leverson; L Thomas Chin; Nancy Krieger; Jeffery T Cooper; Brian D Shames; Yolanda T Becker; Jon S Odorico; Stuart J Knechtle; Hans W Sollinger; Munci Kalayoglu; Anthony M D'Alessandro Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: John F Renz; Cindy Kin; Milan Kinkhabwala; Dominique Jan; Rhaghu Varadarajan; Michael Goldstein; Robert Brown; Jean C Emond Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J L Bernat; A M D'Alessandro; F K Port; T P Bleck; S O Heard; J Medina; S H Rosenbaum; M A Devita; R S Gaston; R M Merion; M L Barr; W H Marks; H Nathan; K O'connor; D L Rudow; A B Leichtman; P Schwab; N L Ascher; R A Metzger; V Mc Bride; W Graham; D Wagner; J Warren; F L Delmonico Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: E Totsuka; F Dodson; A Urakami; N Moras; T Ishii; M C Lee; J Gutierrez; M Gerardo; E Molmenti; J J Fung Journal: Liver Transpl Surg Date: 1999-09
Authors: Ronald W Busuttil; Douglas G Farmer; Hasan Yersiz; Jonathan R Hiatt; Sue V McDiarmid; Leonard I Goldstein; Sammy Saab; Steven Han; Francisco Durazo; Michael Weaver; Carlos Cao; Tony Chen; Gerald S Lipshutz; Curtis Holt; Sherilyn Gordon; Jeffery Gornbein; Farin Amersi; Rafik M Ghobrial Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Feng; N P Goodrich; J L Bragg-Gresham; D M Dykstra; J D Punch; M A DebRoy; S M Greenstein; R M Merion Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Lawrence Lau; Yamuna Kankanige; Benjamin Rubinstein; Robert Jones; Christopher Christophi; Vijayaragavan Muralidharan; James Bailey Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Ricardo C Gehrau; Valeria R Mas; Catherine I Dumur; Jihee L Suh; Ashish K Sharma; Helen P Cathro; Daniel G Maluf Journal: Transplantation Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.939