Literature DB >> 19930316

Rescue allocation for liver transplantation within Eurotransplant: the Heidelberg experience.

Peter Schemmer1, Arash Nickkholgh, Till Gerling, Jürgen Weitz, Markus W Büchler, Jan Schmidt.   

Abstract

Organ shortage has driven many transplant centers to extend their criteria for organ acceptance. Graft allocation policies have been modified accordingly. This report focuses on the impact of applying the so-called rescue allocation (RA) strategy for liver transplantation (LT) in a single center within the Eurotransplant (ET) area. Liver grafts are considered for RA when the regular organ allocation is declined by at least three centers or is averted because of donor instability/unfavorable logistical reasons, thus entering a competitive or a single-recipient rescue organ offer procedure, respectively. The accepting center has the advantage to select a recipient from its own waiting list for these RA grafts. Among 253 livers accepted at the University of Heidelberg between January 2004 and December 2006, we transplanted 85 (34%) rescue-allocated livers. The indications for LT were hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, 43%), chronic liver disease (55%), and acute liver failure (2%). Median cold ischemia time for RA grafts was 10 h (range: 4-17). The MELD score (mean +/- SD) was 13 +/- 7 (range: 6-40) and was 12 +/- 7 for recipients with HCC. Three (3.5%) primary non-functions (PNF) occurred after transplantation of RA livers. One-year patient and graft survival were 84% and 75%, respectively. A comparison between the recipients of RA livers and regularly allocated livers revealed no significant difference regarding initial poor function (IPF), PNF, and surgical complications. Furthermore, a median follow-up of 16 months revealed no significant difference regarding patient and graft survival between the two groups. The use of RA organs has increased the donor pool and transplantation dynamics with satisfying results. The unique possibility to match livers with recipients, which is left to the discretion of accepting center, should be judged according to the center's experience to decrease the waiting times for a timely rescue of organs/recipients while avoiding futile transplantations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19930316     DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2009.01109.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Transplant        ISSN: 0902-0063            Impact factor:   2.863


  5 in total

Review 1.  Donor liver histology--a valuable tool in graft selection.

Authors:  Christa Flechtenmacher; Peter Schirmacher; Peter Schemmer
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  Should we use liver grafts repeatedly refused by other transplant teams?

Authors:  Audrey Winter; Paul Landais; Daniel Azoulay; Mara Disabato; Philippe Compagnon; Corinne Antoine; Christian Jacquelinet; Jean-Pierre Daurès; Cyrille Féray
Journal:  JHEP Rep       Date:  2020-05-04

3.  HTK-N, a modified HTK solution, decreases preservation injury in a model of microsteatotic rat liver transplantation.

Authors:  Qinlong Liu; Helge Bruns; Daniel Schultze; Yi Xue; Markus Zorn; Christa Flechtenmacher; Beate K Straub; Ursula Rauen; Peter Schemmer
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 4.  Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond Milan Criteria: Multidisciplinary Approach to Improve Outcome.

Authors:  A Kornberg
Journal:  ISRN Hepatol       Date:  2014-03-04

5.  The Graz Liver Allocation Strategy-Impact of Extended Criteria Grafts on Outcome Considering Immunological Aspects.

Authors:  Judith Kahn; Gudrun Pregartner; Alexander Avian; Daniela Kniepeiss; Helmut Müller; Peter Schemmer
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 7.561

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.