OBJECTIVE: This study examines donation after cardiac death (DCD) practices and outcomes in liver transplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Livers procured from DCD donors have recently been used to increase the number of deceased donors and bridge the gap between limited organ supply and the pool of waiting list candidates. Comprehensive evaluation of this practice and its outcomes has not been previously reported. METHODS: A national cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Time to graft failure (including death) was modeled by Cox regression, adjusted for relevant donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: DCD livers were used for 472 (2%) of 24,070 transplants. Annual DCD liver activity increased from 39 in 2000 to 176 in 2004. The adjusted relative risk of DCD graft failure was 85% higher than for DBD grafts (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-2.26; P < 0.001), corresponding to 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates of 83.0%, 70.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (vs. 89.2%, 83.0%, and 75.0% for DBD recipients). There was no significant association between transplant program DCD liver transplant volume and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The annual number of DCD livers used for transplant has increased rapidly. However, DCD livers are associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure unrelated to modifiable donor or recipient factors. Appropriate recipients for DCD livers have not been fully characterized and recipient informed consent should be obtained before use of these organs.
OBJECTIVE: This study examines donation after cardiac death (DCD) practices and outcomes in liver transplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Livers procured from DCD donors have recently been used to increase the number of deceased donors and bridge the gap between limited organ supply and the pool of waiting list candidates. Comprehensive evaluation of this practice and its outcomes has not been previously reported. METHODS: A national cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Time to graft failure (including death) was modeled by Cox regression, adjusted for relevant donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: DCD livers were used for 472 (2%) of 24,070 transplants. Annual DCD liver activity increased from 39 in 2000 to 176 in 2004. The adjusted relative risk of DCD graft failure was 85% higher than for DBD grafts (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-2.26; P < 0.001), corresponding to 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates of 83.0%, 70.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (vs. 89.2%, 83.0%, and 75.0% for DBD recipients). There was no significant association between transplant program DCD liver transplant volume and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The annual number of DCD livers used for transplant has increased rapidly. However, DCD livers are associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure unrelated to modifiable donor or recipient factors. Appropriate recipients for DCD livers have not been fully characterized and recipient informed consent should be obtained before use of these organs.
Authors: Robert A Wolfe; Douglas E Schaubel; Randall L Webb; David M Dickinson; Valarie B Ashby; Dawn M Dykstra; Tempie E Hulbert-Shearon; Keith P McCullough Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Philippa F Middleton; Michael Duffield; Stephen V Lynch; Robert T A Padbury; Tony House; Peter Stanton; Deborah Verran; Guy Maddern Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Robert M Merion; Valarie B Ashby; Robert A Wolfe; Dale A Distant; Tempie E Hulbert-Shearon; Robert A Metzger; Akinlolu O Ojo; Friedrich K Port Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-12-07 Impact factor: 56.272
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: M E Wachs; T E Bak; F M Karrer; G T Everson; R Shrestha; T E Trouillot; M S Mandell; T G Steinberg; I Kam Journal: Transplantation Date: 1998-11-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Peter Abt; Michael Crawford; Niraj Desai; James Markmann; Kim Olthoff; Abraham Shaked Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-05-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Colleen L Jay; Anton I Skaro; Daniela P Ladner; Edward Wang; Vadim Lyuksemburg; Yaojen Chang; Hongmei Xu; Sandhya Talakokkla; Neehar Parikh; Jane L Holl; Gordon B Hazen; Michael M Abecassis Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Janet M Bellingham; Chandrasekar Santhanakrishnan; Nikole Neidlinger; Philip Wai; Jim Kim; Silke Niederhaus; Glen E Leverson; Luis A Fernandez; David P Foley; Joshua D Mezrich; Jon S Odorico; Robert B Love; Nilto De Oliveira; Hans W Sollinger; Anthony M D'Alessandro Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Eric S Orman; Maria E Mayorga; Stephanie B Wheeler; Rachel M Townsley; Hector H Toro-Diaz; Paul H Hayashi; A Sidney Barritt Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Emre A Eren; Nicholas Latchana; Eliza Beal; Don Hayes; Bryan Whitson; Sylvester M Black Journal: Exp Clin Transplant Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 0.945
Authors: Hieu Le Dinh; Arnaud de Roover; Abdour Kaba; Séverine Lauwick; Jean Joris; Jean Delwaide; Pierre Honoré; Michel Meurisse; Olivier Detry Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Anton I Skaro; Colleen L Jay; Talia B Baker; Edward Wang; Sarina Pasricha; Vadim Lyuksemburg; John A Martin; Joseph M Feinglass; Luke B Preczewski; Michael M Abecassis Journal: Surgery Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.982