Early liver allograft dysfunction: risk factors, clinical course and outcomes

Early liver allograft dysfunction (EAD) is associated with a high incidence of graft loss and patient mortality in the first 6 weeks after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT).

The aim of this retrospective single-center study is to identify the risk factors of EAD and to compare the short- and long-term results in EAD and non-EAD groups.

Materials and methods. The results of 213 consecutive deceased donor liver transplantations performed between December 2004 and February 2015 were included in the analysis. Indications for OLT were non-viral liver cirrhosis in 52% of cases, viral hepatitis C or B in 34 %, hepatocellular carcinoma in 8 %; retransplantations were performed in 6% of cases due to previous liver graft dysfunction. EAD was defined by Olthoff criteria (Olthoff et al., 2010).

Results. Overall incidence of EAD was 41.3%, including 5.6% of primary non-function grafts (PNF), i.e. irreversible EAD. No significant differences between EAD and non-EAD groups were seen either among donors in their age, gender, cause of death, bilirubin, plasma sodium level, aminotransferases aktivity, or among the recipients in their age, gender, body mass index, MELD. Retransplantation, donor time on mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit for more than 2 days, highrisk donor category, transplant surgery duration more than 9.5 hours, and cold ischemia time (CIT) > 8 hours were independent significant risk factors of EAD in a multivariate model. A 42-day mortality rates were 18.2% in EAD group (mostly due to PNF without urgent retransplantanion in 9.1%), and 0% in non-EAD group. Long-term results in EAD group were also significantly poorer: 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft survival rates were 74%, 68%, and 64%, respectively, versus 96%, 90%, and 83% in non-EAD group, Log-rank p = 0.0001.

Conclusion. EAD significantly (≈ 20%) decreases the short-term graft and patient survival rates. Meanwhile, a reversible EAD has no impact on long-term results. Despite the increased risk of EAD, the liver grafts from high-risk donors are suitable for transplantation. The most important and modifiable risk factor is CIT (optimal timeframe 6 - 8 h), especially when HTK solution is used. The risk of EAD / PNF dramatically increases in case of combined donor and 
recipient risk factors.

1. Merion R.M. Current status and future of liver transplantation. Semin Liver Dis. 2010; 30 (4): 411–421.

2. Gautier S.V., Moysyuk Ya.G., Khomyakov S.M. Donorstvo i transplantatsiya organov v Rossiyskoy Federatsii v 2014 godu. VII soobshchenie registra Rossiyskogo transplantologicheskogo obshchestva [Organ donation and transplantation in the Russian Federation in 2014. VII Post of Russian Transplant Society register]. Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennykh organov. 2015; 2: 7–22. (In Russian).

3. Barshes N.R., Horwitz I.B., Franzini L., et al. Waitlist mortality decreases with increased use of extended criteria donor liver grafts at adult liver transplant centers. Am J Transplant. 2007; 7 (5): 1265–1270.

4. Alkofer B., Samstein B., Guarrera J.V., et al. Extended–donor criteria liver allografts. Semin Liver Dis. 2006; 26 (3): 221–233.

5. Busuttil R.W., Tanaka K. The utility of marginal donors in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2003; 9 (7): 651–663.

6. Merion R.M., Goodrich N.P., Feng S. How can we define expanded criteria for liver donors? J Hepatol. 2006; 45 (4): 484–488.

7. Attia M., Silva M.A., Mirza D.F. The marginal liver donor – an update. Transpl Int. 2008; 21 (8): 713–724.

8. Silberhumer G.R., Rahmel A., Karam V., et al. The difficulty in defining extended donor criteria for liver grafts: The Eurotransplant experience. Transpl Int. 2013; 26 (10): 990–998.

9. Pinna A.D., Neri F., Ravaioli M.A. Bridge Too Far: We Have Overstepped the Line for Extended Deceased Donors. Liver Transpl. 2014; 20 Suppl 2: S6–S8.

10. Fondevila C.A. Bridge Too Far: We Have Not Overstepped the Line for Extended Deceased Donors. Liver Transpl. 2014; 20 Suppl 2: S9–S13.

11. Salvalaggio P., Afonso R.C., Felga G., et al. A proposal to grade the severity of early allograft dysfunction after liver transplantation. Einstein. 2013; 11 (1): 23–31.

12. Shaubel D.E., Sima C.S., Goodrich N.P., et al. The survival benefit of deceased donor liver transplantation as a function of candidate disease severity and donor quality. Am J Transplant. 2008; 8 (2): 419–425.

13. Pareja E., Cortes M., Hervas D., et al. A Score Model for the Continuous Grading of Early Allograft Dysfunction Severity. Liver Transpl. 2015; 21 (1): 38–46.

14. Deschenes M., Belle S.H., Krom R.A., et al. Early allograft dysfunction after liver transplantation: definition and predictors of outcome. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Liver Transplantation Database. Transplantation. 1998; 66 (3): 302–310.

15. Chen X.B., Xu M.Q. Primary graft dysfunction after liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2014; 13 (2): 125–137.

16. Olthoff K.M., Kulik L., Samstein B., et al. Validation of a current definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients and analysis of risk factors. Liver Transpl. 2010; 16 (8): 943–949.

17. Hoyer D.P., Sotiropoulos G.C., Saner F.H., et al. MELD at POD 1 as a predictor of outcome in liver allografts with peak AST >5000 U/l. Transpl Int. 2014; 27: 1285–1293.

18. Deschenes M. Early allograft dysfunction: causes, recognition, and management. Liver Transpl. 2013; 19 Suppl 2: S6–S8.

19. Pogrebnichenko I.V. Effektivnoe ispol'zovanie pecheni mul'tiorgannogo donora dlya transplantatsii: dis. … kand. med. nauk [Effective use of multi organ donor liver transplantation. Cand. med. sci. diss.]. FNTsTIO im VI Shumakova. Moscow, 2014. 29 p. (In Russian).

20. United Network For Organ Sharing. United Network for Organ Sharing Liver Disease Severity Score Committee. 2014. Available at: www.unos.org.