Advertisement

Recipient characteristics and morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation

Published:February 15, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2018.02.004

      Highlights

      • We identified 5 recipient factors in HCV negative transplant recipients associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
      • Graft survival within 5 years based on points (any combination) was 77.2% (0–4), 69.1% (5–8) and 57.9% (>8).
      • In recipients with >8 points, graft survival was 42% (MELD <25) and 50% (MELD 25–35) if donors had donor risk index ≥1.7.
      • Recipients with ≥5 points: longer hospitalization, more rehab admissions, higher incidence of cardiac disease and CKD.

      Background and Aims

      Over the last decade, liver transplantation of sicker, older non-hepatitis C cirrhotics with multiple co-morbidities has increased in the United States. We sought to identify an easily applicable set of recipient factors among HCV negative adult transplant recipients associated with significant morbidity and mortality within five years after liver transplantation.

      Methods

      We collected national (n = 31,829, 2002–2015) and center-specific data. Coefficients of relevant recipient factors were converted to weighted points and scaled from 0–5. Recipient factors associated with graft failure included: ventilator support (five patients; hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% CI 1.48–1.72); recipient age >60 years (three patients; HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.23–1.36); hemodialysis (three patients; HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.16–1.37); diabetes (two patients; HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.14–1.27); or serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dl without hemodialysis (two patients; HR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09–1.22).

      Results

      Graft survival within five years based on points (any combination) was 77.2% (0–4), 69.1% (5–8) and 57.9% (>8). In recipients with >8 points, graft survival was 42% (model for end-stage liver disease [MELD] score <25) and 50% (MELD score 25–35) in recipients receiving grafts from donors with a donor risk index >1.7. In center-specific data within the first year, subjects with ≥5 points (vs. 0–4) had longer hospitalization (11 vs. 8 days, p <0.01), higher admissions for rehabilitation (12.3% vs. 2.7%, p <0.01), and higher incidence of cardiac disease (14.2% vs. 5.3%, p <0.01) and stage 3 chronic kidney disease (78.6% vs. 39.5%, p = 0.03) within five years.

      Conclusion

      The impact of co-morbidities in an MELD-based organ allocation system need to be reassessed. The proposed clinical tool may be helpful for center-specific assessment of risk of graft failure in non-HCV patients and for discussion regarding relevant morbidity in selected subsets.

      Lay summary

      Over the last decade, liver transplantation of sicker, older patient with multiple co-morbidities has increased. In this study, we show that a set of recipient factors (recipient age >60 years, ventilator status, diabetes, hemodialysis and creatinine >1.5 mg/dl) can help identify patients that may not do well after transplant. Transplanting sicker organs in patients with certain combinations of these characteristics leads to lower survival.

      Graphical abstract

      Keywords

      Linked Article

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Hepatology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kim W.R.
        • Stock P.G.
        • Smith J.M.
        • Heimbach J.K.
        • Skeans M.A.
        • Edwards E.B.
        • et al.
        OPTN/SRTR 2011 Annual Data Report: liver.
        Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 73-102
        • Kim W.R.
        • Lake J.R.
        • Smith J.M.
        • Skeans M.A.
        • Schladt D.P.
        • Edwards E.B.
        • et al.
        OPTN/SRTR 2015 Annual Data Report: Liver.
        Am J Transplant. 2017; 17: 174-251
        • Asrani S.K.
        • O'Leary J.G.
        The changing liver transplant waitlist: an emerging liver purgatory?.
        Gastroenterology. 2015; 148: 493-496
        • Charlton M.R.
        • Burns J.M.
        • Pedersen R.A.
        • Watt K.D.
        • Heimbach J.K.
        • Dierkhising R.A.
        Frequency and outcomes of liver transplantation for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in the United States.
        Gastroenterology. 2011; 141: 1249-1253
        • Wong R.J.
        • Aguilar M.
        • Cheung R.
        • Perumpail R.B.
        • Harrison S.A.
        • Younossi Z.M.
        • et al.
        Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the second leading etiology of liver disease among adults awaiting liver transplantation in the United States.
        Gastroenterology. 2015; 148: 547-555
        • Aloia T.A.
        • Knight R.
        • Gaber A.O.
        • Ghobrial R.M.
        • Goss J.A.
        Analysis of liver transplant outcomes for United Network for Organ Sharing recipients 60 years old or older identifies multiple model for end-stage liver disease-independent prognostic factors.
        Liver Transpl. 2010; 16: 950-959
        • Sharma P.
        • Schaubel D.E.
        • Gong Q.
        • Guidinger M.
        • Merion R.M.
        End-stage liver disease candidates at the highest model for end-stage liver disease scores have higher wait-list mortality than status-1A candidates.
        Hepatology. 2012; 55: 192-198
        • Rana A.
        • Hardy M.A.
        • Halazun K.J.
        • Woodland D.C.
        • Ratner L.E.
        • Samstein B.
        • et al.
        Survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT) score: a novel method to predict patient survival following liver transplantation.
        Am J Transplant. 2008; 8: 2537-2546
        • Petrowsky H.
        • Rana A.
        • Kaldas F.M.
        • Sharma A.
        • Hong J.C.
        • Agopian V.G.
        • et al.
        Liver transplantation in highest acuity recipients: identifying factors to avoid futility.
        Ann Surg. 2014; 259: 1186-1194
        • Axelrod D.A.
        • Dzebisashvili N.
        • Lentine K.
        • Segev D.L.
        • Dickson R.
        • Tuttle-Newhall E.
        • et al.
        Assessing variation in the costs of care among patients awaiting liver transplantation.
        Am J Transplant. 2014; 14: 70-78
        • Schaubel D.E.
        • Guidinger M.K.
        • Biggins S.W.
        • Kalbfleisch J.D.
        • Pomfret E.A.
        • Sharma P.
        • et al.
        Survival benefit-based deceased-donor liver allocation.
        Am J Transplant. 2009; 9: 970-981
        • Rowe I.A.
        • Webb K.
        • Gunson B.K.
        • Mehta N.
        • Haque S.
        • Neuberger J.
        The impact of disease recurrence on graft survival following liver transplantation: a single centre experience.
        Transpl Int. 2008; 21: 459-465
        • Wedd J.
        • Bambha K.M.
        • Stotts M.
        • Laskey H.
        • Colmenero J.
        • Gralla J.
        • et al.
        Stage of cirrhosis predicts the risk of liver-related death in patients with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores and cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation.
        Liver Transpl. 2014; 20: 1193-1201
        • Habib S.
        • Berk B.
        • Chang C.C.
        • Demetris A.J.
        • Fontes P.
        • Dvorchik I.
        • et al.
        MELD and prediction of post-liver transplantation survival.
        Liver Transpl. 2006; 12: 440-447
        • Kwong A.J.
        • Lai J.C.
        • Dodge J.L.
        • Roberts J.P.
        Outcomes for liver transplant candidates listed with low model for end-stage liver disease score.
        Liver Transpl. 2015; 21: 1403-1409
        • Sullivan L.M.
        • Massaro J.M.
        • D'Agostino Sr., R.B.
        Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions.
        Stat Med. 2004; 23: 1631-1660
        • Axelrod D.A.
        • Gheorghian A.
        • Schnitzler M.A.
        • Dzebisashvili N.
        • Salvalaggio P.R.
        • Tuttle-Newhall J.
        • et al.
        The economic implications of broader sharing of liver allografts.
        Am J Transplant. 2011; 11: 798-807
        • Axelrod D.A.
        • Schnitzler M.
        • Salvalaggio P.R.
        • Swindle J.
        • Abecassis M.M.
        The economic impact of the utilization of liver allografts with high donor risk index.
        Am J Transplant. 2007; 7: 990-997
        • Allen A.M.
        • Kim W.R.
        • Therneau T.M.
        • Larson J.J.
        • Heimbach J.K.
        • Rule A.D.
        Chronic kidney disease and associated mortality after liver transplantation - A time-dependent analysis using measured glomerular filtration rate.
        J Hepatol. 2014; 61: 286-292
        • Shaffi K.
        • Uhlig K.
        • Perrone R.D.
        • Ruthazer R.
        • Rule A.
        • Lieske J.C.
        • et al.
        Performance of creatinine-based GFR estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients.
        Am J Kidney Dis. 2014; 63: 1007-1018
      1. Assessing Current Policies and the Potential Impact of the DHHS Final Rule. In: Committee on Organ Procurement and Transplantation Policy O, Transplantation. Pa, editors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

        • Lai J.C.
        • Feng S.
        • Roberts J.P.
        An examination of liver offers to candidates on the liver transplant wait-list.
        Gastroenterology. 2012; 143: 1261-1265
        • Adler J.T.
        • Yeh H.
        • Markmann J.F.
        • Axelrod D.A.
        Is donor service area market competition associated with organ procurement organization performance?.
        Transplantation. 2015; 100: 1349-1355
        • Asrani S.K.
        • Saracino G.
        • Trotter J.
        • Nadim M.
        • Kim W.R.
        • Jennings L.
        • et al.
        Center variation in graft failure rates is larger for simultaneous liver kidney transplantation than liver transplantation alone.
        Liver Transpl. 2014; 20 (S278–S278)
        • Asrani S.K.
        • Kim W.R.
        • Edwards E.B.
        • Larson J.J.
        • Thabut G.
        • Kremers W.K.
        • et al.
        Impact of the center on graft failure after liver transplantation.
        Liver Transpl. 2013; 19: 957-964