Duilio Pagano1, Marco Barbàra1, Aurelio Seidita1, Davide Cintorino1, Fabrizio di Francesco1, Ioannis Petridis1, Sergio Calamia1, Giovanna Russelli1, Salvatore Gruttadauria2. 1. Department for the Treatment and Study of Abdominal Diseases and Abdominal Transplantation, IRCCS-ISMETT (Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico - Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta specializzazione), UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Italy, Palermo, Italy. 2. Department for the Treatment and Study of Abdominal Diseases and Abdominal Transplantation, IRCCS-ISMETT (Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico - Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta specializzazione), UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Italy, Palermo, Italy; Department of Surgery and Surgical and Medical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. Electronic address: sgruttadauria@ismett.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adoption of extended criteria for donors remains the best strategy to widen the pool of available liver graft against the chronic shortage of donors. Benchmarking in liver transplantation (LT) offers the unprecedented opportunity to compare clinical outcome measures to a set of validated reference values. We aimed to evaluate the impact of marginal grafts usage in a cohort of low-risk benchmark cases from an area with a very low rate of deceased donation. METHODS: A cohort of low-risk benchmark cases was identified from all adult patients who underwent LT at our center. Among these patients, those transplanted with a graft from an extended-criteria donor (ECD) were identified. Benchmark metrics (length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, incidences of mortality, graft loss, and postoperative complication) were compared with benchmark cutoffs and between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-five patients satisfied the inclusion criteria, 146 (60%) of whom received an organ from an ECD. Overall, all benchmark metrics where within the cutoffs limits, except for graft loss (14% vs 11%) and mortality (10% vs 9% 1 year after LT). The ECD group was associated with more grade III complications (60% vs 45%, P = .031), graft loss (18% vs 8%, P = .038), and mortality (14% vs 4%, P = .009). Hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis was found to be associated with less mortality (odds ratio = 0.42, P = .048). CONCLUSION: While ECD graft usage is associated with slightly worse prognosis, our experience suggests that their use can be considered safe, especially when matched on hepatocellular carcinoma recipients.
BACKGROUND: The adoption of extended criteria for donors remains the best strategy to widen the pool of available liver graft against the chronic shortage of donors. Benchmarking in liver transplantation (LT) offers the unprecedented opportunity to compare clinical outcome measures to a set of validated reference values. We aimed to evaluate the impact of marginal grafts usage in a cohort of low-risk benchmark cases from an area with a very low rate of deceased donation. METHODS: A cohort of low-risk benchmark cases was identified from all adult patients who underwent LT at our center. Among these patients, those transplanted with a graft from an extended-criteria donor (ECD) were identified. Benchmark metrics (length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, incidences of mortality, graft loss, and postoperative complication) were compared with benchmark cutoffs and between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-five patients satisfied the inclusion criteria, 146 (60%) of whom received an organ from an ECD. Overall, all benchmark metrics where within the cutoffs limits, except for graft loss (14% vs 11%) and mortality (10% vs 9% 1 year after LT). The ECD group was associated with more grade III complications (60% vs 45%, P = .031), graft loss (18% vs 8%, P = .038), and mortality (14% vs 4%, P = .009). Hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis was found to be associated with less mortality (odds ratio = 0.42, P = .048). CONCLUSION: While ECD graft usage is associated with slightly worse prognosis, our experience suggests that their use can be considered safe, especially when matched on hepatocellular carcinoma recipients.
Authors: Cyrill Wehling; Michael T Dill; Alexander Olkus; Christoph Springfeld; De-Hua Chang; Patrick Naumann; Thomas Longerich; Clemens Kratochwil; Arianeb Mehrabi; Uta Merle; Jan Pfeiffenberger; Christian Rupp; Karl Heinz Weiss; Markus Mieth Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 4.553