BACKGROUND: Infants have the highest wait-list mortality of all liver transplantation candidates. Deceased-donor split-liver transplantation, a technique that provides both an adult and pediatric graft, might be the best way to decrease this disproportionate mortality. Yet concern for an increased risk to adult split recipients has discouraged its widespread adoption. We aimed to determine the current risk of graft failure in adult recipients after split-liver transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: United Network for Organ Sharing data from 62,190 first-time adult recipients of deceased-donor liver transplants (1995-2010) were analyzed (889 split grafts). Bivariate risk factors (p < 0.2) were included in Cox proportional hazards models of the effect of transplant type on graft failure. RESULTS: Split-liver recipients had an overall hazard ratio of graft failure of 1.26 (p < 0.001) compared with whole-liver recipients. The split-liver hazard ratio was 1.45 (p < 0.001) in the pre-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era (1995-2002) and 1.10 (p = 0.28) in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era (2002-2010). Interaction analyses suggested an increased risk of split-graft failure in status 1 recipients and those given an exception for hepatocellular carcinoma. Excluding higher-risk recipients, split and whole grafts had similar outcomes (hazard ratio = 0.94; p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of graft failure is now similar between split and whole-liver recipients in the vast majority of cases, which demonstrates that the expansion of split-liver allocation might be possible without increasing the overall risk of long-term graft failure in adult recipients. Additional prospective analysis should examine if selection bias might account for the possible increase in risk for recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma or designated status 1.
BACKGROUND:Infants have the highest wait-list mortality of all liver transplantation candidates. Deceased-donor split-liver transplantation, a technique that provides both an adult and pediatric graft, might be the best way to decrease this disproportionate mortality. Yet concern for an increased risk to adult split recipients has discouraged its widespread adoption. We aimed to determine the current risk of graft failure in adult recipients after split-liver transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: United Network for Organ Sharing data from 62,190 first-time adult recipients of deceased-donor liver transplants (1995-2010) were analyzed (889 split grafts). Bivariate risk factors (p < 0.2) were included in Cox proportional hazards models of the effect of transplant type on graft failure. RESULTS: Split-liver recipients had an overall hazard ratio of graft failure of 1.26 (p < 0.001) compared with whole-liver recipients. The split-liver hazard ratio was 1.45 (p < 0.001) in the pre-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era (1995-2002) and 1.10 (p = 0.28) in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era (2002-2010). Interaction analyses suggested an increased risk of split-graft failure in status 1 recipients and those given an exception for hepatocellular carcinoma. Excluding higher-risk recipients, split and whole grafts had similar outcomes (hazard ratio = 0.94; p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of graft failure is now similar between split and whole-liver recipients in the vast majority of cases, which demonstrates that the expansion of split-liver allocation might be possible without increasing the overall risk of long-term graft failure in adult recipients. Additional prospective analysis should examine if selection bias might account for the possible increase in risk for recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma or designated status 1.
Keywords:
DD; HCC; LD; MELD; Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; UNOS; United Network for Organ Sharing; deceased donor; hepatocellular carcinoma; living donor
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: Elizabeth A Pomfret; Kenneth Washburn; Christoph Wald; Michael A Nalesnik; David Douglas; Mark Russo; John Roberts; David J Reich; Myron E Schwartz; Luis Mieles; Fred T Lee; Sander Florman; Francis Yao; Ann Harper; Erick Edwards; Richard Freeman; John Lake Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Charbel Sandroussi; Michael Crawford; David S Lockwood; Patrick Tang; James P Gallagher; Henry Pleass; Simone I Strasser; Nicholas A Shackel; Geoffrey W McCaughan; Deborah J Verran Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: John P Roberts; Tempie E Hulbert-Shearon; Robert M Merion; Robert A Wolfe; Friedrich K Port Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Andrea Lauterio; Stefano Di Sandro; Giacomo Concone; Riccardo De Carlis; Alessandro Giacomoni; Luciano De Carlis Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Douglas B Mogul; Xun Luo; Mary G Bowring; Eric K Chow; Allan B Massie; Kathleen B Schwarz; Andrew M Cameron; John F P Bridges; Dorry L Segev Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Jin Ge; Emily R Perito; John Bucuvalas; Richard Gilroy; Evelyn K Hsu; John P Roberts; Jennifer C Lai Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Douglas B Mogul; Xun Luo; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Mary G Bowring; Allan B Massie; Kathleen B Schwarz; Andrew M Cameron; John F P Bridges; Dorry L Segev Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Mary Elizabeth M Tessier; Sanjiv Harpavat; Ross W Shepherd; Girish S Hiremath; Mary L Brandt; Amy Fisher; John A Goss Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 5.742