暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Growing interest has been recently reported in the potential detrimental role of donor gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) peak at the time of organ procurement regarding the risk of poor outcomes after liver transplantation (LT). However, the literature on this topic is scarce and controversial data exist on the mechanisms justifying such a correlation. This study aims to demonstrate the adverse effect of donor GGT in a large European LT cohort regarding 90-day post-transplant graft loss.
METHODS: This is a retrospective international study investigating 1335 adult patients receiving a first LT from January 2004 to September 2018 in four collaborative European centers.
RESULTS: Two different multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the risk factors for 90-day post-transplant graft loss, introducing donor GGT as a continuous or dichotomous variable. In both models, donor GGT showed an independent role as a predictor of graft loss. In detail, the log-transformed continuous donor GGT value showed an odds ratio of 1.46 (95% CI = 1.03-2.07; p = 0.03). When the donor GGT peak value was dichotomized using a cut-off of 160 IU/L, the odds ratio was 1.90 (95% CI = 1.20-3.02; p = 0.006). When the graft-loss rates were investigated, significantly higher rates were reported in LT cases with donor GGT ≥160 IU/L. In detail, 90-day graft-loss rates were 23.2% vs. 13.9% in patients with high vs. low donor GGT, respectively (log-rank p = 0.004). Donor GGT was also added to scores conventionally used to predict outcomes (i.e., MELD, D-MELD, DRI, and BAR scores). In all cases, when the score was combined with the donor GGT, an improvement in the model accuracy was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Donor GGT could represent a valuable marker for evaluating graft quality at transplantation. Donor GGT should be implemented in scores aimed at predicting post-transplant clinical outcomes. The exact mechanisms correlating GGT and poor LT outcomes should be better clarified and need prospective studies focused on this topic.

The UK kidney offering scheme introduced a kidney donor risk index (UK-KDRI) to improve the utility of deceased-donor kidney allocations. The UK-KDRI was derived using adult donor and recipient data. We assessed this in a paediatric cohort from the UK transplant registry.
We performed Cox survival analysis on first kidney-only deceased brain-dead transplants in paediatric (<18 years) recipients from 2000-2014. The primary outcome was death-censored allograft survival >30 days post-transplant. The main study variable was UK-KDRI derived from seven donor risk-factors, categorised into four groups (D1-low risk, D2, D3 and D4-highest risk). Follow-up ended on 31-December-2021.
319/908 patients experienced transplant loss with rejection as the main cause (55%). The majority of paediatric patients received donors from D1 donors (64%). There was an increase in D2-4 donors during the study period, whilst the level of HLA mismatching improved. The KDRI was not associated with allograft failure. In multi-variate analysis, increasing recipient age [adjusted HR and 95%CI: 1.05(1.03-1.08) per-year, p<0.001], recipient minority ethnic group [1.28(1.01-1.63), p<0.05), dialysis before transplant [1.38(1.04-1.81), p<0.005], donor height [0.99 (0.98-1.00) per centimetre, p<0.05] and level of HLA mismatch [Level 3: 1.92(1.19-3.11); Level 4: 2.40(1.26-4.58) versus Level 1, p<0.01] were associated with worse outcomes. Patients with Level 1 and 2 HLA mismatches (0 DR +0/1 B mismatch) had median graft survival >17 years regardless of UK-KDRI groups. Increasing donor age was marginally associated with worse allograft survival [1.01 (1.00-1.01) per year, p=0.05].
Adult donor risk scores were not associated with long-term allograft survival in paediatric patients. The level of HLA mismatch had the most profound effect on survival. Risk models based on adult data alone may not have the same validity for paediatric patients and therefore all age-groups should be included in future risk prediction models.

The role of nutrition in donor after brain deaths (DBDs) has yet to be adequately discussed. The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether the nutritional intake in the 48 h before organ retrieval may play a role on the graft functional recovery assessed with Model for Early Allograft Function (MEAF) Score.
Single-center retrospective study evaluating all liver transplants performed at the University Hospital of Udine from January 2010 to August 2020. Patients receiving grafts from DBD donors fed with artificial enteral nutrition in the 48 h prior to organ procurement (EN-group) or who did not (No-EN-group). Caloric debt was calculated using the difference between the calculated caloric needs and the effective calories delivered through enteral nutrition.
Livers from EN-group presented a lower mean MEAF score compared to the no-EN-group: 3.39 ± 1.46 versus 4.15 ± 1.51, respectively (p = .04). A positive correlation between caloric debt and the MEAF score was found within the overall population (r = .227, p = .043) as well as in EN-group (r = .306, p = .049).
Donor\'s nutritional intake in the final 48 h before organ procurement correlates with MEAF score, and nutrition probably plays a positive role on the functional recovery of the graft. Large future randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this preliminary results.

Accurate assessment of donor quality at the time of organ offer for liver transplantation candidates may be inadequately captured by the donor risk index (DRI). We sought to develop and validate a novel objective and simple model to assess donor risk using donor level variables available at the time of organ offer. We utilized national data from candidates undergoing primary LT (2013-2019) and assessed the prediction of graft failure 1 year after LT. The final components were donor Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, Donor type (DCD or DBD), cause of Death = CVA, serum creatinine, Age, height, and weight (length). The ID2 EAL score had better discrimination than DRI using bootstrap corrected concordant index over time, especially in the current era. We explored donor-recipient matching. Relative risk of graft failure ranged from 1.15 to 3.5 based on relevant donor-recipient matching by the ID2 EAL score. As an example, for certain recipients, a young DCD donor offer was preferable to an older DBD with relevant comorbidities. The ID2 EAL score may serve as an important tool for patient discussion about donor risk and decisions regarding offer acceptance. In addition, the score may be preferable to succinctly capture donor risk in future organ allocation that considers continuous distribution (www.iddealscore.com).

Several studies have explored the risk of graft dysfunction after liver transplantation (LT) in recent years. Conversely, risk factors for graft discard before or at procurement have poorly been investigated. The study aimed at identifying a score to predict the risk of liver-related graft discard before transplantation. Secondary aims were to test the score for prediction of biopsy-related negative features and post-LT early graft loss. A total of 4207 donors evaluated during the period January 2004-Decemeber 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The group was split into a training set (n = 3,156; 75.0%) and a validation set (n = 1,051; 25.0%). The Donor Rejected Organ Pre-transplantation (DROP) Score was proposed: - 2.68 + (2.14 if Regional Share) + (0.03*age) + (0.04*weight)-(0.03*height) + (0.29 if diabetes) + (1.65 if anti-HCV-positive) + (0.27 if HBV core) - (0.69 if hypotension) + (0.09*creatinine) + (0.38*log10AST) + (0.34*log10ALT) + (0.06*total bilirubin). At validation, the DROP Score showed the best AUCs for the prediction of liver-related graft discard (0.82; p < 0.001) and macrovesicular steatosis ≥ 30% (0.71; p < 0.001). Patients exceeding the DROP 90th centile had the worse post-LT results (3-month graft loss: 82.8%; log-rank P = 0.024).The DROP score represents a valuable tool to predict the risk of liver function-related graft discard, steatosis, and early post-LT graft survival rates. Studies focused on the validation of this score in other geographical settings are required.

Liver allocation policy was changed to reduce variance in median MELD scores at transplant (MMaT) in February 2020. \"Acuity circles\" replaced local allocation. Understanding the impact of policy change on donor utilization is important. Ideal (I), standard (S), and non-ideal (NI) donors were defined. NI donors include older, higher BMI donors with elevated transaminases or bilirubin, history of hepatitis B or C, and all DCD donors. Utilization of I, S, and NI donors was established before and after allocation change and compared between low MELD (LM) centers (MMaT ≤ 28 before allocation change) and high MELD (HM) centers (MMaT > 28). Following reallocation, transplant volume increased nationally (67 transplants/center/year pre, 74 post, p .0006) and increased for both HM and LM centers. LM centers significantly increased use of NI donors and HM centers significantly increased use of I and S donors. Centers further stratify based on donor utilization phenotype. A subset of centers increased transplant volume despite rising MMaT by broadening organ acceptance criteria, increasing use of all donor types including DCD donors (98% increase), increasing living donation, and transplanting more frequently for alcohol associated liver disease. Variance in donor utilization can undermine intended effects of allocation policy change.

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.

In search for novel biomarkers to assess graft quality, we investigated whether defined candidate genes are predictive for outcome after liver transplantation (LT). Zero-hour liver biopsies were obtained from 88 livers. Gene expression of selected candidate markers was analyzed and correlated with clinical parameters as well as short and long-term outcomes post LT. Whereas both, the calculated Eurotransplant Donor-Risk-Index and the donor body mass index, had either a poor or no predictive value concerning serum levels indicative for liver function (ALT, AST, GGT, bilirubin) after 6 months, chronological donor age was weakly predictive for serum bilirubin (AUC=0.67). In contrast, the major histcompatibility complex class I related chain A (MICA) mRNA expression demonstrated a high predictive value for serum liver function parameters revealing an inverse correlation (e.g. for ALT: 3 months p=0.0332; 6 months p=0.007, 12 months 0.0256, 24 months p=0.0098, 36 months, p=0.0153) and proved significant also in a multivariate regression model. Importantly, high expression of MICA mRNA revealed to be associated with prolonged graft survival (p=0.024; log rank test) after 10 years of observation, whereas low expression was associated with the occurrence of death in patients with transplant related mortality (p=0.031). Given the observed correlation with short and long-term graft function, we suggest MICA as a biomarker for pre-transplant graft evaluation.

This study aimed to identify cutoff values for donor risk index (DRI), Eurotransplant (ET)-DRI, and balance of risk (BAR) scores that predict the risk of liver graft loss. MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched systematically and unrestrictedly. Graft loss odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were assessed by meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel tests with a random-effects model. Cutoff values for predicting graft loss at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years were analyzed for each of the scores. Measures of calibration and discrimination used in studies validating the DRI and the ET-DRI were summarized. DRI ≥ 1.4 (six studies, n = 35 580 patients) and ET-DRI ≥ 1.4 (four studies, n = 11 666 patients) were associated with the highest risk of graft loss at all time points. BAR > 18 was associated with the highest risk of 3-month and 1-year graft loss (n = 6499 patients). A DRI cutoff of 1.8 and an ET-DRI cutoff of 1.7 were estimated using a summary receiver operator characteristic curve, but the sensitivity and specificity of these cutoff values were low. A DRI and ET-DRI score ≥ 1.4 and a BAR score > 18 have a negative influence on graft survival, but these cutoff values are not well suited for predicting graft loss.