Donor eligibility criteria and liver graft acceptance criteria during normothermic regional perfusion: A systematic review
- PMID: 35603445
- PMCID: PMC9796375
- DOI: 10.1002/lt.26512
Donor eligibility criteria and liver graft acceptance criteria during normothermic regional perfusion: A systematic review
Abstract
Acceptance of liver grafts from donations after circulatory death (DCD) largely remains a "black box," particularly due to the unpredictability of the agonal phase. Abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (aNRP) can reverse ischemic injury early during the procurement procedure, and it simultaneously enables graft viability testing to unravel this black box. This review evaluates current protocols for liver viability assessment to decide upon acceptance or decline during aNRP. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was used, and relevant literature databases were searched. The primary outcome consisted of criteria for liver graft viability assessment. Secondary outcomes included survival, primary nonfunction (PNF), early dysfunction, and biliary complications. A total of 14 articles were included in the analysis. In all protocols, a combination of criteria was used to assess suitability of the liver for transplantation. As many as 12 studies (86%) used macroscopic assessment, 12 studies (86%) used alanine transaminase (ALT) levels in perfusate, 9 studies (64%) used microscopic assessment, and 7 studies (50%) used lactate levels as assessment criteria. The organ utilization rate (OUR) was 16% for uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) and 64% for controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD). The most used acceptation criterion in uDCD is ALT level (31%), while in cDCD macroscopic aspect (48%) is most used. Regarding postoperative complications, PNF occurred in 13% (6%-25%) of uDCD livers and 3% (2%-4%) of cDCD livers. In uDCD, the 1-year graft and patient survival rates were 75% (66%-82%) and 82% (75%-88%). In cDCD, the 1-year graft and patient survival rates were 91% (89%-93%) and 93% (91%-94%), respectively. In conclusion, the currently used assessment criteria consist of macroscopic aspect and transaminase levels. The acceptance criteria should be tailored according to donor type to prevent an unacceptable PNF rate in uDCD and to increase the relatively modest OUR in cDCD.
© 2022 The Authors. Liver Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Conflict of interest statement
Constantino Fondevila received grants from Guangdong Shunde Innovative Design Institute.
Figures
References
-
- Thuong M, Ruiz A, Evrard P, Kuiper M, Boffa C, Akhtar MZ, et al. New classification of donation after circulatory death donors definitions and terminology. Transpl Int. 2016;29:749–59. - PubMed
-
- Lomero M, Gardiner D, Coll E, Haase‐Kromwijk B, Procaccio F, Immer F, et al. Donation after circulatory death today: an updated overview of the European landscape. Transpl Int. 2020;33:76–88. - PubMed
-
- O'Neill S, Roebuck A, Khoo E, Wigmore SJ, Harrison EM. A meta‐analysis and meta‐regression of outcomes including biliary complications in donation after cardiac death liver transplantation. Transpl Int. 2014;27:1159–74. - PubMed
-
- Kalisvaart M, de Haan JE, Polak WG, Metselaar HJ, Wijnhoven BPL, Ijzermans JNM, et al. Comparison of postoperative outcomes between donation after circulatory death and donation after brain death liver transplantation using the comprehensive complication index. Ann Surg. 2017;266:772–8. - PubMed
-
- Kalisvaart M, Schlegel A, Umbro I, de Haan JE, Scalera I, Polak WG, et al. The impact of combined warm ischemia time on development of acute kidney injury in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: stay within the golden hour. Transplantation. 2018;102:783–93. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
