Yanik J Bababekov, Anna H Ha, Trevor L Nydam, Carlos Goncalves, Rashikh Choudhury, JoLynn Shinsako, Maria Baimas-George, David M Reynolds, Cassidy Yoshida, Caroline A Racke, Han Grewal, Sophia Pomposelli, Ivan E Rodriguez, Jordan R H Hoffman, Jesse D Schold, Bruce Kaplan, Elizabeth A Pomfret, James J Pomposelli
{"title":"Thoracoabdominal Normothermic Regional Perfusion: Real-world Experience and Outcomes of DCD Liver Transplantation.","authors":"Yanik J Bababekov, Anna H Ha, Trevor L Nydam, Carlos Goncalves, Rashikh Choudhury, JoLynn Shinsako, Maria Baimas-George, David M Reynolds, Cassidy Yoshida, Caroline A Racke, Han Grewal, Sophia Pomposelli, Ivan E Rodriguez, Jordan R H Hoffman, Jesse D Schold, Bruce Kaplan, Elizabeth A Pomfret, James J Pomposelli","doi":"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Donation after circulatory death liver transplantation (DCD LT) is underused given historical outcomes fraught with ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). We aimed to assess 6-mo IC in LT from DCD via normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) compared with DCD via static cold storage (SCS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of adult Maastricht-III DCD liver donors and recipients at the University of Colorado Hospital from January 1, 2017, to August 27, 2024, was performed. The 6-mo IC rate was compared between NRP and SCS. Secondary outcomes included biochemical assessments of accepted versus declined NRP liver allografts and allograft and patient survival for NRP and SCS groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred sixty-two DCD LTs (SCS = 79; NRP = 97) were performed and 150 recipients (SCS = 74; NRP = 86) reached 6-mo follow-up. Six-month IC was lower for NRP compared with SCS (1.2% versus 9.5%, <i>P</i> = 0.03). The Donor Risk Index (2.44 [2.02-2.82] versus 2.17 [1.97-2.30], <i>P</i> = 0.002) and UK DCD Risk Score (4.2 ± 2.9 versus 3.2 ± 2.3, <i>P</i> = 0.008) were higher for NRP versus SCS. The Liver Graft assessment Following Transplantation score was less for NRP compared with SCS (-3.3 versus -3.1, <i>P</i> < 0.05). There were several differences in median biochemical parameters during NRP between accepted and declined livers, including higher terminal biliary bicarbonate (22.7 [20.9-29.1] versus 10.8 [7.6-13.1] mEq/L, <i>P</i> = 0.004). There were no significant differences in 12-mo allograft or patient survival for NRP versus SCS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NRP is a disruptive innovation that improves the utilization of DCD livers. Despite higher-risk donor-recipient pairing for NRP compared with SCS, we demonstrate a decrease in IC for NRP. These data facilitate benchmarking of thoracoabdominal NRP DCD LT and support further protocol development.</p>","PeriodicalId":23225,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Direct","volume":"11 3","pages":"e1767"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11875611/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Direct","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001767","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Donation after circulatory death liver transplantation (DCD LT) is underused given historical outcomes fraught with ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). We aimed to assess 6-mo IC in LT from DCD via normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) compared with DCD via static cold storage (SCS).
Methods: A retrospective review of adult Maastricht-III DCD liver donors and recipients at the University of Colorado Hospital from January 1, 2017, to August 27, 2024, was performed. The 6-mo IC rate was compared between NRP and SCS. Secondary outcomes included biochemical assessments of accepted versus declined NRP liver allografts and allograft and patient survival for NRP and SCS groups.
Results: One hundred sixty-two DCD LTs (SCS = 79; NRP = 97) were performed and 150 recipients (SCS = 74; NRP = 86) reached 6-mo follow-up. Six-month IC was lower for NRP compared with SCS (1.2% versus 9.5%, P = 0.03). The Donor Risk Index (2.44 [2.02-2.82] versus 2.17 [1.97-2.30], P = 0.002) and UK DCD Risk Score (4.2 ± 2.9 versus 3.2 ± 2.3, P = 0.008) were higher for NRP versus SCS. The Liver Graft assessment Following Transplantation score was less for NRP compared with SCS (-3.3 versus -3.1, P < 0.05). There were several differences in median biochemical parameters during NRP between accepted and declined livers, including higher terminal biliary bicarbonate (22.7 [20.9-29.1] versus 10.8 [7.6-13.1] mEq/L, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in 12-mo allograft or patient survival for NRP versus SCS.
Conclusions: NRP is a disruptive innovation that improves the utilization of DCD livers. Despite higher-risk donor-recipient pairing for NRP compared with SCS, we demonstrate a decrease in IC for NRP. These data facilitate benchmarking of thoracoabdominal NRP DCD LT and support further protocol development.