Older liver graft transplantation, cholestasis and synthetic graft function.
ABSTRACT Older liver grafts are often discarded because of conservative selection criteria. We report on our clinical experience with graft-age related outcome. Patients transplanted with livers older than 70 years (70.2-80.2 years, n = 38) were compared with controls transplanted with livers younger than 70 years. Pairs were matched for age, gender, indication and cold ischemic time. Mean donor age was 73.4 +/- 2 vs. 39 +/- 16 years. Patient and graft survival did not differ between both groups after 1-year follow-up (P = 0.19 and P = 0.24 respectively). Retransplantation rate was 10.5% vs. 5.3% (P = 0.40). Initial poor function occurred in two patients in the study group versus four patients in the control group (P = 0.69). The incidence of rejection episodes was comparable. Parameters of cholestasis and protein synthesis showed no difference 1-year post-transplant. Mean age of donor organs in matched pairs group B was near by half of that in the older donor group A (39.0 vs. 73.4 years). Post-transplant outcome as indicated by patient and graft survival was comparable between both groups. Donor organ age had no impact on postoperative organ function. We recommend to accept liver grafts from organ donors older than 70 years to expand the donor pool.
- SourceAvailable from: Carmelo Loinaz[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The increasing number of recipients on the waiting list for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and the scarcity of donors contribute to recipient pretransplantation mortality. One important measure to increase the donor liver pool would be to accept the previously discarded donors who are more than 80 years old. From November 1996 to May 1998, four liver grafts from octogenarian donors (89, 87, 82, and 85 years old, respectively) were used for OLT. Pretransplantation donor and recipient characteristics and the evolution of recipients after OLT were analyzed. The donors did not present cardiac arrest or hypotension, and only low doses of vasopressors were required in three of them. Intensive care unit stay of the donors was from 12 to 24 hr. Cold ischemia time was from 4 hr to 8 hr 40 min. Mild microsteatosis was present in three donors and associated macrosteatosis of < 10% in one of these. Macroscopic appearance and consistency were normal in all four grafts. Posttransplantation evolution and follow-up were uneventful. Three recipients were alive and well at 24, 16, and 7 months; the second of these died at 16 months of recurrent viral C cirrhosis after a first OLT. The liver donor pool can be increased if liver grafts are accepted without an age limit but in good condition (hemodynamic stability, short intensive care unit stay, good liver function, soft consistency, cold ischemia time <9 hr, and no severe steatosis). Octogenarian donors should be individually assessed in the absence of these ideal conditions.Transplantation 08/1999; 68(4):572-5. · 3.78 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) currently allows for the analysis of 44,286 liver transplantations (LTs) performed on 39,196 patients in a 13-year period. After an exponential increase, the number of LTs is plateauing due to a lack of organs. To cope with this, alternatives to cadaveric LT, such as split LT, domino LT, or living-related LT (LRLT) are being used increasingly. They now account for 11% of all procedures. One of the most important findings in the evolution of LT is the considerable improvement of results along time with, for the mean time, a one-year survival of 83%, all indications confounded. The improvement is particularly significant for cancers. This improvement is mainly represented by hepatocellular carcinoma, with a gain of 17% for 5-year survival rate from 1990 to 2000. Increasingly, older donors are used to augment the donor pool and older recipients are transplanted due to improved results and a better selection of patients. More than two thirds of deaths and three quarters of retransplantations occurred within the first year of transplantation. Retransplantation is associated with much less optimal results than first LT. One of the prominent features of recent years is the development of LRLT. LRLT is now performed by almost half of the European centers. As with split LT or domino LT, LRLT aims to provide more patients to be transplanted. Special attention is paid to reducing the risk for the donor, which is now estimated to be 0.5% mortality and 21% postoperative morbidity.Liver Transplantation 01/2004; 9(12):1231-43. · 3.94 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Several advances in organ preservation have allowed for improved results after liver transplantation; however, little information is available regarding the clinical impact of preservation injury on the postoperative course. The medical records of 889 liver transplants were retrospectively reviewed. Preservation injury was classified according to postoperative aspartate aminotransferase values as minor (<1000 U/L), moderate (1000-5000 U/L), or severe (>5000 U/L). The following criteria were analyzed and compared according to the extent of preservation injury: patient and graft survival, retransplantation rate, duration of hospitalization and postoperative ventilation, as well as incidence of rejection, infection, and hemodialysis. The majority of patients received a liver with minor preservation injury (75.9%), whereas 22.7% and 1.3% of grafts showed moderate or severe injury. Graft survival was significantly lower in patients with severe preservation injury, when compared to minor or moderate injury. The relative risk for initial nonfunction was 39.36-fold increased (95% confidence interval (ci): 10.3-150.2), as it was increased for duration of postoperative ventilation (6.92-fold; 95%ci: 2.1-22.3) and hemodialysis (6.13-fold; 95%ci: 1.9-19.3). Since the incidence of retransplantation was significantly increased (50%), patient survival remained comparable between all groups. Severe preservation injury had a tremendous impact on the postoperative clinical course, requiring the maximum medical effort to achieve adequate patient survival.American Journal of Transplantation 08/2003; 3(8):1003-9. · 6.19 Impact Factor