The impact of donor age on liver transplantation: influence of donor age on early liver function and on subsequent patient and graft survival.

Department of Surgery, Hospital Princeps d'Espanya, C/Feixa llarga s/n, 08907 Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Transplantation (Impact Factor: 3.78). 07/2001; 71(12):1765-71. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-200106270-00011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The urgent need to increase the organ donor pool has led to the expansion of criteria for donor selection. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of donor age on early graft function, subsequent graft loss, and mortality after liver transplantation (LT).
Data on LT were evaluated retrospectively in a population-based cohort of 400 LTs in 348 patients. Of these, 21 (5%) were from donors >70 years old. Pretransplantation donor and recipient characteristics and the evolution of recipients were analyzed. The influence of donor age as a risk factor was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.
Actuarial graft survival was 89% at 1 month after LT, 81% after 6 months, and 59% after 60 months. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that only donor age (>70 years old) was associated with a higher risk of long-term graft loss (relative risk [RR]=1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1-1.9; P=0.03) and mortality (RR=1.7, 95% CI=1.2-2.3; P=0.01). Graft survival of septuagenarian livers was 80% at 1 month after LT, 56% after 6 months, and 25% after 54 months. Actuarial survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier curves) also demonstrated worse evolution in recipients of livers from old donors (log-rank test, P<0.001).
Advanced donor age is associated with lower graft and recipient survival.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Since 2002, the Model of End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has been the basis of the liver transplant (LT) allocation system. Among older adult LT recipients, short-term outcomes in the MELD era were comparable to the pre-MELD era, but long-term outcomes remain unclear. Material and Methods This is a retrospective cohort study using the UNOS data on patients age ≥50 years who underwent primary LT from February 27, 2002 until October 31, 2011. Results A total of 35,686 recipients met inclusion criteria. The cohort was divided into 5-year interval age groups. Five-year over-all survival rates for ages 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, and 70+ were 72.2%, 71.6%, 69.5%, 65.0%, and 57.5%, respectively. Five-year graft survival rates after adjusting for death as competing risk for ages 50-54, 55-59,60-64, 65-69 and 70+ were 85.8%, 87.3%, 89.6%, 89.1% and 88.9%, respectively. By Cox proportional hazard modeling, age ≥60, increasing MELD, donor age ≥60, hepatitis C, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), dialysis and impaired pre-transplant functional status (FS) were associated with increased 5-year mortality. Using Fine and Gray sub-proportional hazard modeling adjusted for death as competing risk, 5-year graft failure was associated with donor age ³60, increasing MELD, hepatitis C, HCC, and impaired pre-transplant FS. Conclusions Among older LT recipients in the MELD era, long-term graft survival after adjusting for death as competing risk was improved with increasing age, while over-all survival was worse. Donor age, hepatitis C, and pre-transplant FS represent potentially modifiable risk factors that could influence long-term graft and patient survival.
    Annals of transplantation: quarterly of the Polish Transplantation Society 01/2014; 19:478-487. · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Improvements in surgical techniques, immunosuppression, and post-transplantation patient care have led to the optimization of liver transplantation outcomes. However, the waiting list for liver transplantation is increasing at a greater pace. The large gap between the growing pool of patients waiting for liver transplantation and the scarcity of donor organs has fueled efforts to maximize existing donors and identify new sources. This article will be focused on the current state of liver transplantation using grafts from extended criteria donors (elderly donors, steatotic donors, donors with malignancies, donors with viral hepatitis) and from donation after cardiac death (DCD), as well as the use of partial grafts (split grafts and living-donor liver transplantation) and other suboptimal donors (donors with hypernatremia, infections, hypotension and inotropic support). Overall, broadened criteria for acceptable donor livers appear to lessen graft survival rates somewhat compared with rates for standard criteria organs.
    International journal of organ transplantation medicine. 01/2013; 4(2):46-59.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The scarcity of ideal liver grafts for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has led transplant teams to investigate other sources of grafts in order to augment the donor liver pool. One way to get more liver grafts is to use marginal donors, a not well-defined group which includes mainly donors > 60 years, donors with hypernatremia or macrosteatosis > 30%, donors with hepatitis C virus or hepatitis B virus positive serologies, cold ischemia time > 12 h, non-heart-beating donors, and grafts from split-livers or living-related donations. Perhaps the most practical and frequent measure to increase the liver pool, and thus to reduce waiting list mortality, is to use older livers. In the past years the results of OLT with old livers have improved, mainly due to better selection and maintenance of donors, improvements in surgical techniques in donors and recipients, and intra- and post-OLT management. At the present time, sexagenarian livers are generally accepted, but there still exists some controversy regarding the use of septuagenarian and octogenarian liver grafts. The aim of this paper is to briefly review the aging process of the liver and reported experiences using old livers for OLT. Fundamentally, the series of septuagenarian and octogenarian livers will be addressed to see if there is a limit to using these aged grafts.
    World journal of gastroenterology : WJG. 08/2014; 20(31):10691-10702.