Utilization of older deceased donors for pediatric liver transplant may negatively impact long-term survival

Sakil S Kulkarni1, Neeta A Vachharajani2, Angela L Hill2

  • 1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hepatology, St. Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

Insights

Older donor livers in pediatric transplantation are associated with worse outcomes, especially for deceased donor grafts. However, living donor liver transplants from older donors show a less negative impact on patient survival.

Area of Science:

  • Hepatology
  • Transplantation Surgery
  • Pediatric Medicine

Background:

  • Adult studies suggest older donors (ODs) can expand the donor pool.
  • The impact of ODs on pediatric liver transplantation (PLT) outcomes remains unclear.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the outcomes of pediatric liver transplantation (PLT) using grafts from older donors (ODs).
  • To compare the survival rates and identify predictors of success in PLT recipients of OD grafts versus younger donor (YD) grafts.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized the UNOS database to identify pediatric liver transplants (≤18 years) in the US (2002-2022).
  • Classified donors ≥40 years as ODs and performed propensity score matching for comparative analysis.
  • Employed Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to assess patient and graft survival.

Main Results:

  • 669 out of 10,024 PLT recipients received grafts from ODs.
  • OD recipients had higher acuity (e.g., higher MELD/PELD scores, ICU status) at transplantation.
  • Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed worse patient and graft survival for OD recipients compared to YD recipients (p<0.001).
  • This survival disparity was significant for deceased donor grafts but not for living donor grafts from ODs.

Conclusions:

  • OD livers are allocated to higher acuity pediatric candidates.
  • Pediatric recipients of OD grafts experience poorer outcomes than those receiving YD grafts.
  • Living donor liver transplantation from ODs demonstrates the least negative impact on recipient outcomes.
Abstract