Translational studies in liver transplantation often require an endpoint of graft function or dysfunction beyond graft loss. Prior definitions of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) vary, and none have been validated in a large multicenter population in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) era. We examined an updated definition of EAD to validate previously used criteria, and correlated this definition with graft and patient outcome. We performed a cohort study of 300 deceased donor liver transplants at 3 U.S. programs. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following previously defined postoperative laboratory analyses reflective of liver injury and function: bilirubin ≥10mg/dL on day 7, international normalized ratio ≥1.6 on day 7, and alanine or aspartate aminotransferases >2000 IU/L within the first 7 days. To assess predictive validity, the EAD definition was tested for association with graft and patient survival. Risk factors for EAD were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Overall incidence of EAD was 23.2%. Most grafts met the definition with increased bilirubin at day 7 or high levels of aminotransferases. Of recipients meeting the EAD definition, 18.8% died, as opposed to 1.8% of recipients without EAD (relative risk = 10.7 [95% confidence interval: 3.6, 31.9] P < 0.0001). More recipients with EAD lost their grafts (26.1%) than recipients with no EAD (3.5%) (relative risk = 7.4 [95% confidence interval: 3.4, 16.3] P < 0.0001). Donor age and MELD score were significant EAD risk factors in a multivariate model. In summary a simple definition of EAD using objective posttransplant criteria identified a 23% incidence, and was highly associated with graft loss and patient mortality, validating previously published criteria. This definition can be used as an endpoint in translational studies aiming to identify mechanistic pathways leading to a subgroup of liver grafts with clinical expression of suboptimal function. Liver Transpl 16:943-949, 2010. © 2010 AASLD.

The objective of this study was to characterize the patient population with respect to patient selection, assess surgical morbidity and graft failures, and analyze the contribution of perioperative clinical factors to recipient outcome in adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT). Previous reports have been center-specific or from large databases lacking detailed variables. The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) represents the first detailed North American multicenter report of recipient risk and outcome aiming to characterize variables predictive of graft failure. Three hundred eighty-five ALDLT recipients transplanted at 9 centers were studied with analysis of over 35 donor, recipient, intraoperative, and postoperative variables. Cox regression models were used to examine the relationship of variables to the risk of graft failure. Ninety-day and 1-year graft survival were 87% and 81%, respectively. Fifty-one (13.2%) grafts failed in the first 90 days. The most common causes of graft failure were vascular thrombosis, primary nonfunction, and sepsis. Biliary complications were common (30% early, 11% late). Older recipient age and length of cold ischemia were significant predictors of graft failure. Center experience greater than 20 ALDLT was associated with a significantly lower risk of graft failure. Recipient Model for End-stage Liver Disease score and graft size were not significant predictors. This multicenter A2ALL experience provides evidence that ALDLT is a viable option for liver replacement. Older recipient age and prolonged cold ischemia time increase the risk of graft failure. Outcomes improve with increasing center experience.

Objectives: To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival. Background: The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks. Methods: Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models. Results: Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT. Conclusions: LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options. Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

Liver damage is typically inferred from serum measurements of cytoplasmic liver enzymes. DNA molecules released from dying hepatocytes are an alternative biomarker, unexplored so far, potentially allowing for quantitative assessment of liver cell death. Here we describe a method for detecting acute hepatocyte death, based on quantification of circulating, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragments carrying hepatocyte-specific methylation patterns. We identified 3 genomic loci that are unmethylated specifically in hepatocytes, and used bisulfite conversion, PCR, and massively parallel sequencing to quantify the concentration of hepatocyte-derived DNA in mixed samples. Healthy donors had, on average, 30 hepatocyte genomes/ml plasma, reflective of basal cell turnover in the liver. We identified elevations of hepatocyte cfDNA in patients shortly after liver transplantation, during acute rejection of an established liver transplant, and also in healthy individuals after partial hepatectomy. Furthermore, patients with sepsis had high levels of hepatocyte cfDNA, which correlated with levels of liver enzymes aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients, in which elevated AST and ALT derive from damaged muscle rather than liver, did not have elevated hepatocyte cfDNA. We conclude that measurements of hepatocyte-derived cfDNA can provide specific and sensitive information on hepatocyte death, for monitoring human liver dynamics, disease, and toxicity.

A national conference was held to review and assess data gathered since implementation of MELD and PELD and determine future directions. The objectives of the conference were to review the current system of liver allocation with a critical analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. Conference participants used an evidence-based approach to consider whether predicted outcome after transplantation should influence allocation, to discuss the concept of minimal listing score, to revisit current and potential expansion of exception criteria, and to determine whether specific scores should be used for automatic removal of patients on the waiting list. After review of data from the first 18 months since implementation, association and society leaders, and surgeons and hepatologists with wide regional representation were invited to participate in small group discussions focusing on each of the main objectives. At the completion of the meeting, there was agreement that MELD has had a successful initial implementation, meeting the goal of providing a system of allocation that emphasizes the urgency of the candidate while diminishing the reliance on waiting time, and that it has proven to be a powerful tool for auditing the liver allocation system. It was also agreed that the data regarding the accuracy of PELD as a predictor of pretransplant mortality were less conclusive and that PELD should be considered in isolation. Recommendations for the transplant community, based on the analysis of the MELD data, were discussed and are presented in the summary document. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:A6-A22.)

The current system granting liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) additional Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) points is controversial due to geographic disparity and uncertainty regarding optimal prioritization of candidates. The current national policy assigns a MELD exception score of 22 immediately upon listing of eligible patients with HCC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential effects of delays in granting these exception points on transplant rates for HCC and non‐HCC patients. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data and liver simulated allocation modeling software and modeled (1) a 3‐month delay before granting a MELD exception score of 25, (2) a 6‐month delay before granting a score of 28, and (3) a 9‐month delay before granting a score of 29. Of all candidates waitlisted between January 1 and December 31, 2010 (n = 28,053), 2773 (9.9%) had an HCC MELD exception. For HCC candidates, transplant rates would be 108.7, 65.0, 44.2, and 33.6 per 100 person‐years for the current policy and for 3‐, 6‐, and 9‐month delays, respectively. Corresponding rates would be 30.1, 32.5, 33.9, and 34.8 for non‐HCC candidates. Conclusion: A delay of 6‐9 months would eliminate the geographic variability in the discrepancy between HCC and non‐HCC transplant rates under current policy and may allow for more equal access to transplant for all candidates. (Hepatology 2015;61:1643–1650)