We previously reported that national liver distribution is highly concentrated in 6 US centers, and this raises the possibility of expedited placement. Therefore, we evaluated all national offers of nationally placed livers (n=1625) to adult wait-list candidates from February 2005 to January 2010. We developed a model to predict national utilization pathways; pathways exceeding the best-fit linear unbiased predictions by ≥3 standard errors were defined as preferred. All 51 donation service areas (DSAs) placed 1 or more livers nationally, but the percentage per DSA ranged from 1% to 36%. Of 2830 possible national DSA-center pathways, 87% were used. Five hundred eighty livers (36%) were accepted on the first national offer. Four DSAs accounted for 47% of first-national-offer livers, and 44% of these were accepted by a single center. In comparison with first-offer livers using nonpreferred pathways, first offers along a preferred pathway were offered to fewer status 1 candidates (19% versus 61%) and had lower median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores (22 versus 36, P<0.001). In conclusion, DSA placement patterns of national livers vary widely, with 4 DSAs exporting a high proportion of national livers on the first national offer to non-status 1 candidates with MELD scores less than their local transplant MELD scores. Although this practice may facilitate liver placement, it raises the possibility of expedience trumping patient need. Here we propose changes to the national liver distribution system that will help to balance equity, efficiency, and transparency.

United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policies allow for ABO-nonidentical liver transplantation (LT) in candidates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores greater than 30. Previous studies showed ABO-nonidentical LT resulted in an 18% and 55% net gain in livers for B and AB candidates. These results suggested that the current liver ABO allocation policies may need refinement. There are, however, strong associations between ABO blood groups and race/ethnicity. We hypothesized that race/ethnicity is associated with ABO-nonidentical LT and that this is primarily influenced by recipient ABO status. We examined non-status 1 adult candidates registered between July 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. There were 27 835 candidates (70% non-Hispanic White, 15% Hispanic, 9% Black, 4% Asian, 1% Other/Multiracial). A total of 11 369 underwent deceased donor LT: 93% ABO identical, 6% ABO compatible, and 1% ABO incompatible. Black and Asian race/ethnicity were associated with increased likelihoods of ABO-nonidentical LT. Adjustment for disease etiology, listing MELD, transplant center volume, and UNOS region did not alter this association. Stepwise inclusion of recipient ABO status did eliminate this significant association of race/ethnicity with ABO-nonidentical LT. Blacks and Asians may be advantaged by ABO-nonidentical LT, and we suspect that changes to the existing policies may disproportionately impact these groups.

Patients with T1 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are not eligible for Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception for liver transplant (LT) in part due to a high rate of misdiagnosis (no HCC on explant). The likelihood of misdiagnosis for T2 HCC and factors associated with misdiagnosis are unknown. We analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database including 5664 adults who underwent LT from 2012 to 2015 with MELD exception for T2 HCC, and searched for no evidence of HCC in the explant pathology file. We focused on those (n = 324) receiving no local-regional therapy (LRT) to evaluate the probability of no HCC found in explant. Median waiting time was short at 1.7 months, and 35 (11%) had no HCC on explant. On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with no HCC on explant were age <50 (OR: 17.3, P < .001), non-HCV (OR: 5.4, P = .001), and alpha-fetoprotein <10 (OR: 2.9, P = .04). Tumor size and number were not different between groups. The proportion of misdiagnosis did not change significantly after implementation of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for HCC diagnosis.

Conclusion

The rate of misdiagnosis was 11% among T2 HCC patients who underwent LT without receiving LRT prior to LT and did not change significantly after implementation of LI-RADS. More efforts are needed to eliminate unnecessary LT for patients without HCC.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic capability of imaging modalities used for preoperative mesenteric-left portal bypass ("Rex shunt") planning. Twenty patients with extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis underwent 57 preoperative planning abdominal imaging studies. Two readers retrospectively reviewed these studies for an ability to confidently determine left portal vein (PV) patency, superior mesenteric vein (SMV) patency, and intrahepatic left and right PV contiguity. In this study, computed tomographic arterial portography allowed for confident characterization of left PV patency, SMV patency and left and right PV continuity in 100% of the examinations. Single phase contrast-enhanced CT, multi-phase contrast-enhanced CT, multiphase contrast-enhanced MRI, and transarterial portography answered all key diagnostic questions in 33%, 30%, 0% and 8% of the examinations, respectively. In conclusion, of the variety of imaging modalities that have been employed for Rex shunt preoperative planning, computed tomographic arterial portography most reliably allows for assessment of left PV patency, SMV patency, and left and right PV contiguity in a single study.

We investigated the possibility that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplant with tumors just outside stage T2 size criteria may be inaccurately reported as just meeting the tumor size criteria for transplant. The United Network for Organ Sharing/Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database identified 12,958 patients listed for liver transplants with HCC exception points from 2006 to 2013, 9,168 of whom were listed with one tumor. A logistic power peak function was fitted to the single-tumor size histogram, with the fitted values representing unbiased expected values. The difference between the observed and expected tumor counts for 2.0 cm and 5.0 cm was 238 (22%) and 66 (57%), respectively. This suggests that up to 304 (3.0%) patients with tumors outside of transplant criteria had their measurements recorded at the margins of eligibility. A risk-adjusted Poisson model evaluated the ratio of observed to expected HCC recurrence by tumor size. There were 435 HCC recurrences among 6,049 transplants. Only 2.0-cm tumors had observed to expected recurrence differing from 1 (ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.94), indicating a 27% lower than expected rate of recurrence.

Conclusion

Higher than expected observed tumor counts at the lower transplant criteria margin were corroborated by lower than expected HCC recurrence, suggesting that tumor sizes at the margins of HCC transplant criteria may be subject to inaccurate reporting. (Hepatology 2017;66:1144-1150).

Previous studies on loco-regional therapy (LRT) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in predicting outcome after liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have shown inconsistent results. We analyzed the OPTN database in Region 5 from January 2004 to January 2009 and performed univariate and multivariate analysis of 11 pre-transplant recipient and donor variables in 1074 patients with HCC meeting Milan criteria to detect association with post-LT tumor recurrence or mortality. Mean waitlist time was 438 d. The 1- and 5-yr post-LT survival was 91.1% and 71.1%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, AFP before LT was the only predictor of HCC recurrence. The association between AFP and HCC recurrence was observed only in the subgroup receiving LRT but not in the subgroup without LRT. Predictors of mortality in multivariate analysis were HCC recurrence, Donor Risk Index, last AFP before LT, and MELD score. AFP before LT was the strongest predictor of post-transplant HCC recurrence or death in multivariate analysis. In conclusion, in Region 5 with prolonged waitlist time, high AFP was the only pre-transplant variable predicting post-transplant tumor recurrence and mortality for HCC meeting Milan criteria. Our results also supported the importance of the effects of LRT on AFP in predicting prognosis.

Patients with T1 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; 1 lesion < 2 cm) are currently not eligible for priority listing for liver transplantation (LT). A common practice is to wait without locoregional therapy (LRT) until tumor growth occurs from T1 to T2 (1 lesion 2-5 cm or 2-3 lesions ≤ 3 cm) to be eligible for listing with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception. We aimed to evaluate the intention to treat outcome of the "wait and not ablate" approach for nonresection candidates with T1 HCC until tumor growth to T2. The study included 114 patients with T1 HCC 1.0-1.9 cm followed by serial imaging every 3 months. Two investigators performed independent imaging reviews to confirm the diagnosis. Median increase in total tumor diameter was 0.14 cm/month. Probabilities of progression from T1 to directly beyond T2 without LT listing were 4.4% at 6 months and 9.0% at both 12 and 24 months. The 1- and 3-year survival was 94.5% and 75.5%. In multivariate analysis, predictors of rapid tumor progression, defined as a > 1 cm increase in total tumor diameter over 3 months, included alcoholic liver disease (odds ratio [OR], 6.52; P = 0.02) and Hispanic race (OR, 3.86; P = 0.047), whereas hepatitis B appeared to be protective (OR, 0.09; P = 0.04). By competing risks regression, predictors of exclusion from LT (with or without listing for LT under T2) were alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥ 500 ng/mL (HR, 12.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-57.0; P = 0.001) and rapid tumor progression (HR, 5.68; P < 0.001). In conclusion, the "wait and not ablate" approach until tumor growth from T1 to T2 before LT listing is associated with a <10% risk of tumor progression to directly beyond T2 criteria. However, patients with AFP ≥ 500 ng/mL and rapid tumor progression are at high risk for wait-list dropout and should receive early LRT.

Context

Donors showed poor glucose control in the period between declaration of brain death and organ recovery. The level of hyperglycemia in the donors was associated with a decline in terminal renal function.

Objective

To determine whether implementation of a quality improvement project improved glucose control and preserved renal function in deceased organ donors.

Methods

Data collected retrospectively included demographics, medical history, mechanism of death, laboratory values, and data from the United Network for Organ Sharing.

Results

After implementation of the quality improvement project, deceased donors had significantly lower mean glucose concentrations (mean [SD], 162 [44] vs 212 [42] mg/dL; P<.001) and prerecovery glucose concentration (143 [66] vs 241 [69] mg/dL; P<.001). When the donor cohorts from before and after the quality improvement project were analyzed together, mean glucose concentration remained a significant predictor of terminal creatinine level (P<.001). Multivariate analysis of delayed graft function in kidney recipients matched to donors indicated that higher terminal creatinine level was associated with delayed graft function in recipients (P<.001).

Conclusion

The quality improvement project improved donor glucose homeostasis, and the data confirm that poor glucose homeostasis is associated with worsening terminal renal function.

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, which estimates mortality within 90 days, determines priority for liver transplantation (LT). However, longer-term outcomes on the wait list for patients who are initially listed with low MELD scores are not well characterized. All adults listed for primary LT at a single, high-volume center from 2005 to 2012 with an initial laboratory MELD score of 22 or lower were evaluated. Excluded were those patients listed with MELD exception points who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or transplantation at another center, or who were removed from the wait list for nonmedical reasons. Outcomes and causes of death were identified by United Network for Organ Sharing, the National Death Index, and an electronic medical record review. Multivariate competing risk analysis evaluated predictors of death compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT); 893 patients were listed from 2005 to 2012. By the end of follow-up, 27% had undergone DDLT, and 31% were removed from the wait list for death or clinical deterioration. In a competing risks assessment, only MELD score of 6-9, older age, lower serum albumin, lower body mass index, and diabetes conferred an increased risk of wait-list dropout compared to DDLT. Listing for simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation was protective against wait-list dropout. Of the patients included, 275 patients died or were delisted for being too sick; 87% of the identifiable causes of death were directly related to end-stage liver disease or hepatocellular carcinoma. In conclusion, patients with low listing MELD scores remain at a significant risk for death due to liver-related causes and may benefit from early access to transplantation, such as LDLT or acceptance of high-risk donor livers. Predictors of death compared to transplantation may allow for early identification of patients who are at risk for wait-list mortality.

Background

With the use of split liver grafts as well as living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) it is imperative to know the minimum graft volume to avoid complications. Most current formulas to predict standard liver volume (SLV) rely on weight-based measures that are likely inaccurate in the setting of cirrhosis. Therefore, we sought to create a formula for estimating SLV without weight-based covariates.

Methods

LDLT donors underwent computed tomography scan volumetric evaluation of their livers. An optimal formula for calculating SLV using the anthropomorphic measure thoracoabdominal circumference (TAC) was determined using leave-one-out cross-validation. The ability of this formula to correctly predict liver volume was checked against other existing formulas by analysis of variance. The ability of the formula to predict small grafts in LDLT was evaluated by exact logistic regression.

Results

The optimal formula using TAC was determined to be SLV = (TAC × 3.5816) - (Age × 3.9844) - (Sex × 109.7386) - 934.5949. When compared to historic formulas, the current formula was the only one which was not significantly different than computed tomography determined liver volumes when compared by analysis of variance with Dunnett posttest. When evaluating the ability of the formula to predict small for size syndrome, many (10/16) of the formulas tested had significant results by exact logistic regression, with our formula predicting small for size syndrome with an odds ratio of 7.94 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-91.36; P = 0.025).

Conclusion

We report a formula for calculating SLV that does not rely on weight-based variables that has good ability to predict SLV and identify patients with potentially small grafts.