Cost-effectiveness of Dual Hypothermic Oxygenated Machine Perfusion Versus Static Cold Storage in DCD Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND: Ex situ machine perfusion of the donor liver, such as dual hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (DHOPE), is increasingly used in liver transplantation. Although DHOPE reduces ischemia/reperfusion-related complications after liver transplantation, data on cost-effectiveness are lacking. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DHOPE in donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation.

METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation of DHOPE versus static cold storage (SCS) based on a multicenter randomized controlled trial in DCD liver transplantation (DHOPE-DCD trial; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02584283). All patients enrolled in the 3 participating centers in the Netherlands were included. Costs related to the transplant procedure, hospital stay, readmissions, and outpatients treatments up to 1 y posttransplant were calculated. The cost for machine perfusion was calculated using 3 scenarios: (1) costs for machine perfusion, (2) machine perfusion costs plus costs for personnel, and (3) scenario 2 plus depreciation expenses for a dedicated organ perfusion room.

RESULTS: Of 119 patients, 60 received a liver after DHOPE and 59 received a liver after SCS alone. The mean total cost per patient up to 1 y posttransplant was €126 221 for the SCS group and €110 794 for the DHOPE group. The most significant reduction occurred in intensive care costs (28.4%), followed by nonsurgical interventions (24.3%). In cost scenario 1, DHOPE was cost-effective after 1 procedure. In scenarios 2 and 3, cost-effectiveness was achieved after 25 and 30 procedures per year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional SCS, machine perfusion using DHOPE is cost-effective in DCD liver transplantation, reducing the total medical costs up to 1 y posttransplant.