TY - JOUR
T1 - Heterogeneous indications and the need for viability assessment
T2 - An international survey on the use of machine perfusion in liver transplantation
AU - Liver Machine Perfusion Survey Group
AU - Patrono, Damiano
AU - Cussa, Davide
AU - Rigo, Federica
AU - Romagnoli, Renato
AU - Angelico, Roberta
AU - Bellini, Maria Irene
AU - Riani, Eliano Bonaccorsi
AU - Bruggenwirth, Isabel
AU - Czigany, Zoltan
AU - De Carlis, Riccardo
AU - de Meijer, Vincent E.
AU - Dondossola, Daniele
AU - Eshmuminov, Dilmurodjon
AU - Ghinolfi, Davide
AU - Hessheimer, Amelia
AU - Kollmann, Dagmar
AU - Lai, Quirino
AU - Lurje, Georg
AU - Manzia, Tommaso M.
AU - Merhabi, Ari
AU - Melandro, Fabio
AU - Nasralla, David
AU - Nickkholgh, Arash
AU - Pagano, Duilio
AU - Rayar, Michel
AU - Weissenbacher, Annemarie
AU - Avolio, Alfonso W.
AU - De Simone, Paolo
AU - Fondevila, Costantino
AU - Jassem, Wayel
AU - Macconmara, Malcolm
AU - Porte, Robert J.
AU - Selzner, Markus
AU - Spada, Marco
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Although machine perfusion (MP) is being increasingly adopted in liver transplantation, indications, timing, and modality are debated. To investigate current indications for MP a web-based Google Forms survey was launched in January 2021 and addressed to 127 experts in the field, identified among first and corresponding Authors of MP literature in the last 10 years. The survey presented 10 real-life cases of donor–recipient matching, asking whether the liver would be accepted (Q1), whether MP would be used in that particular setting (Q2) and, if so, by which MP modality (Q3) and at what timing during preservation (Q4). Respondents could also comment on each case. The agreement was evaluated using Krippendorff's alpha coefficient. Answers from 39 (30.1%) participants disclosed significant heterogeneity in graft acceptance, MP indications, technique, and timing. Agreement between respondents was generally poor (Q1, α = 0.11; Q2, α = 0.14; Q3, α = 0.12, Q4, α = 0.11). Overall, respondents preferred hypothermic MP and an end-ischemic approach in 56.3% and 81.1% of cases, respectively. A total of 18 (46.2%) participants considered only one MP approach, whereas 17 (43.6%) and 3 (7.7%) considered using alternatively 2 or 3 different techniques. Of 38 comments, 17 (44.7%) were about the use of MP for graft viability assessment before implantation. This survey shows considerable variability in MP indications, emphasizing the need to identify scenarios of optimal utilization for each technique. Viability assessment emerges as a fundamental need of transplant professionals when considering the use of MP.
AB - Although machine perfusion (MP) is being increasingly adopted in liver transplantation, indications, timing, and modality are debated. To investigate current indications for MP a web-based Google Forms survey was launched in January 2021 and addressed to 127 experts in the field, identified among first and corresponding Authors of MP literature in the last 10 years. The survey presented 10 real-life cases of donor–recipient matching, asking whether the liver would be accepted (Q1), whether MP would be used in that particular setting (Q2) and, if so, by which MP modality (Q3) and at what timing during preservation (Q4). Respondents could also comment on each case. The agreement was evaluated using Krippendorff's alpha coefficient. Answers from 39 (30.1%) participants disclosed significant heterogeneity in graft acceptance, MP indications, technique, and timing. Agreement between respondents was generally poor (Q1, α = 0.11; Q2, α = 0.14; Q3, α = 0.12, Q4, α = 0.11). Overall, respondents preferred hypothermic MP and an end-ischemic approach in 56.3% and 81.1% of cases, respectively. A total of 18 (46.2%) participants considered only one MP approach, whereas 17 (43.6%) and 3 (7.7%) considered using alternatively 2 or 3 different techniques. Of 38 comments, 17 (44.7%) were about the use of MP for graft viability assessment before implantation. This survey shows considerable variability in MP indications, emphasizing the need to identify scenarios of optimal utilization for each technique. Viability assessment emerges as a fundamental need of transplant professionals when considering the use of MP.
U2 - 10.1111/aor.14061
DO - 10.1111/aor.14061
M3 - Article
SN - 0934-0874
VL - 46
SP - 296
EP - 305
JO - Transplant International
JF - Transplant International
IS - 2
ER -