RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains infrequently performed in the United States and localized to a few centers. This study aimed to compare pediatric waiting list and posttransplant outcomes by LDLT center volume. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was retrospectively reviewed for all pediatric (age <18 y) liver transplant candidates listed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019. The average annual number of LDLT, deceased donor partial liver transplant (DDPLT), and overall (ie, LDLT + DDPLT + whole liver transplants) pediatric liver transplants performed by each transplant center during the study period was calculated. RESULTS: Of 88 transplant centers, only 44 (50%) performed at least 1 pediatric LDLT during the study period. LDLT, DDPLT, and overall transplant center volume were all positively correlated. LDLT center volume was protective against waiting list dropout after adjusting for confounding variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.97; P = 0.004), whereas DDPLT and overall center volume were not ( P > 0.05); however, DDPLT center volume was significantly protective against both recipient death and graft loss, whereas overall volume was only protective against graft loss and LDLT volume was not protective for either. CONCLUSIONS: High-volume pediatric LDLT center can improve waiting list survival, whereas DDPLT and overall volume are associated with posttransplant survival. Expertise in all types of pediatric liver transplant options is important to optimize outcomes.
Assuntos
Transplante de Fígado , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos , Criança , Sobrevivência de Enxerto , Humanos , Transplante de Fígado/efeitos adversos , Doadores Vivos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Listas de EsperaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare trends in use of drug overdose (DO) donors in adult versus pediatric liver transplants and the utilization of split liver transplantation in this donor population. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was reviewed for deceased donor liver transplants from March 2002 to December 2017. Recipients were categorized by donor mechanism of death. Donor splitting criteria was defined as age <40 y, single vasopressor or less, transaminases no >3 times the normal limit, and body mass index ≤ 28 kg/m2. RESULTS: Adult liver transplants from DO donors increased from 2% in 2002 to 15% in 2017, while pediatric liver transplants from DO donors only increased from <1% to 3% in the same time. While 28% of DO donors met splitting criteria, only 3% of those meeting splitting criteria were used as a split graft. Both pediatric and adult recipients of DO donor livers achieved excellent patient and graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: DO donors are underutilized in pediatric liver transplantation. Increased splitting of DO donor livers could significantly decrease, if not eliminate, the pediatric liver waiting list.