UNASSIGNED: Uncertainties exist surrounding the timing of liver transplantation (LT) among patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 (ACLF-3), regarding whether to accept a marginal quality donor organ to allow for earlier LT or wait for either an optimal organ offer or improvement in the number of organ failures, in order to increase post-LT survival.
UNASSIGNED: We created a Markov decision process model to determine the optimal timing of LT among patients with ACLF-3 within 7 days of listing, to maximize overall 1-year survival probability.
UNASSIGNED: We analyzed 6 groups of candidates with ACLF-3: patients age ≤60 or >60 years, patients with 3 organ failures alone or 4-6 organ failures, and hepatic or extrahepatic ACLF-3. Among all groups, LT yielded significantly greater overall survival probability vs. remaining on the waiting list for even 1 additional day (p <0.001), regardless of organ quality. Creation of 2-way sensitivity analyses, with variation in the probability of receiving an optimal organ and expected post-transplant mortality, indicated that overall survival is maximized by earlier LT, particularly among candidates >60 years old or with 4-6 organ failures. The probability of improvement from ACLF-3 to ACLF-2 does not influence these recommendations, as the likelihood of organ recovery was less than 10%.
UNASSIGNED: During the first week after listing for patients with ACLF-3, earlier LT in general is favored over waiting for an optimal quality donor organ or for recovery of organ failures, with the understanding that the analysis is limited to consideration of only these 3 variables.
UNASSIGNED: In the setting of grade 3 acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF-3), questions remain regarding the timing of transplantation in terms of whether to proceed with liver transplantation with a marginal donor organ or to wait for an optimal liver, and whether to transplant a patient with ACLF-3 or wait until improvement to ACLF-2. In this study, we used a Markov decision process model to demonstrate that earlier transplantation of patients listed with ACLF-3 maximizes overall survival, as opposed to waiting for an optimal donor organ or for improvement in the number of organ failures.

UNASSIGNED: Survival following liver transplant (LT) is influenced by a variety of factors, including donor risk factors and recipient disease burden and co-morbidities. It is difficult to separate these effects from those of socioeconomic factors, such as income or insurance. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) created equitable access policies, such as Share 35, to ensure that organs are distributed to individuals with greatest medical need; however, the effect of Share 35 on disparities in post-LT survival is not clear. This study aimed to (1) characterize associations between post-transplant survival and race and ethnicity, income, insurance, and citizenship status, when adjusted for other clinical and demographic factors that may influence survival, and (2) determine if the direction of associations changed after Share 35.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective, cohort study of adult LT recipients (n = 83,254) from the UNOS database from 2005 to 2019 was conducted. Kaplan-Meier survival graphs and stepwise multivariate cox-regression analyses were performed to characterize the effects of socioeconomic status on post-LT survival, adjusted for recipient and donor characteristics, across the time period and after Share 35.
UNASSIGNED: Male sex (HR: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96)), private insurance (0.91 (0.88-0.94)), income (0.82 (0.79-0.85)), U.S. citizenship, and Asian (0.81 (0.75-0.88)) or Hispanic (0.82 (0.79-0.86)) race and ethnicity were associated with higher post-transplant survival, after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors (Table 3). These associations were found across the entire time period studied and many persisted after the implementation of Share 35 in 2013 (Table 3; male sex (0.84 (0.79-0.90)), private insurance (0.94 (0.89-1.00)), income (0.82 (0.77-0.89)), and Asian (0.87 (0.73-1.02)) or Hispanic (0.88 (0.81-0.96)) race and ethnicity).
UNASSIGNED: Recipients\' socioeconomic factors at time of transplant may impact long-term post-transplant survival, and a single policy may not significantly alter these structural health inequalities.
UNASSIGNED: None.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) is an important complication of liver transplant (LT). The donor risk index, which does not incorporate steatosis, includes several variables known to impact on allograft survival. The purpose of this study was to report on donor liver allograft steatosis and its association with severity of IRI.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of type and grade of donor liver steatosis on the occurrence and severity of IRI in LT recipients.
METHODS: This was an observational study conducted at a single center over a period of 37 months from July 2013 to August 2016. Liver biopsy was performed twice, initially at the time of procurement before graft perfusion for steatosis assessment. Steatosis was classified as microsteatosis (MiS) or macrosteatosis (MaS) with mild, moderate, or severe grade. Second biopsy for IRI assessment was taken before skin closure in death donor LT (DDLT) and at the time of transaminitis in postoperative period (<72 hrs) in living donor LT (LDLT). IRI was graded as per neutrophil infiltrate, apoptosis, and hepatocyte cell dropout. Prevalence of IRI and association steatosis was studied along with other factors.
RESULTS: Among 53 subjects, 35 were DDLTs and 18 were LDLTs. All live donor grafts were restricted to <15% MaS and the deceased liver grafts had different type and degree of steatosis. In DDLTs, the association between occurrence of IRI and MaS was not statistically significant (P = 0.201). In DDLTs, the mild steatosis was not significantly associated with IRI. Death donor and ischemic time were significantly associated with IRI. Child\'s stage and MELD scores, gender, and age were not associated with risk of IRI. Severity of IRI is significantly associated with 3-month mortality (P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild steatosis, IRI does not correlate with steatosis. However, more patients with moderate and severe steatosis are needed to define the relationship of the two in this group of patients.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of liver transplantation (LT) is limited by the availability of suitable organs. This study aimed to assess the impact of the donor risk index (DRI) and other donor characteristics on fibrosis progression, graft, and patient survival in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected LT recipients.
METHODS: HCV-infected LT recipients who had at least 2 post-LT protocol liver biopsy specimens available were included. Hazard ratio for bivariate analysis was computed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.
RESULTS: Of 312 recipients, 26.6% died over a median follow-up of 58.5 months (95% CI: 46.5-67.3). Fourteen patients underwent re-transplantation. Mean time to graft failure was 84.3 months, median follow-up: 59 months, 95% CI (48.2, 68.3). DRI >1.5 was significantly associated with patient and graft survival (P = 0.04). Of the subset of 104 individuals who underwent histological analysis, 67.3% progressed to ≥F2. On multivariate analysis, significant donor-specific predictors of fibrosis progression were: donor age >50 years and DRI >1.7.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) Fibrosis progression in HCV-infected LT recipients is strongly associated with donor characteristics, specifically donor age and DRI. (2) DRI, an objective measure of donor quality, appears to correlate both with rate of histological progression and overall patient/graft survival.