There is a lack of universally accepted clinical parameters to guide the utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor livers and it is unclear as to which patients would benefit most from these organs. We reviewed our experience in 141 patients who underwent liver transplantation using DCD allografts from 1993 to 2007. Patient outcomes were analyzed in comparison to a matched cohort of 282 patients who received livers from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Patient survival was similar, but 1-, 5-and 10-year graft survival was significantly lower in DCD (69%, 56%, 44%) versus DBD (82%, 73%, 63%) subjects (p < 0.0001). Primary nonfunction and biliary complications were more common in DCD patients, accounting for 67% of early graft failures. A donor warm ischemia time >20 min, cold ischemia time >8 h and donor age >60 were associated with poorer DCD outcomes. There was a lack of survival benefit in DCD livers utilized in patients with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) ≤30 or those not on organ-perfusion support, as graft survival was significantly lower compared to DBD patients. However, DCD and DBD subjects transplanted with MELD >30 or on organ-perfusion support had similar graft survival, suggesting a potentially greater benefit of DCD livers in critically ill patients.

In the setting of liver transplantation, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may be used as an adjuvant therapy for immunosuppression to prevent graft rejection; however, its use may be limited due to severe gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. In contrast, enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) may be associated with less severe side effects and hence better tolerability. We compared the side effects of EC-MPS to MMF in liver transplant patients in a de novo study (Study I-randomized, prospective, double-blinded) and a conversion study (Study II). In both studies, the severity of GI symptoms was assessed at various time points using the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) survey, a validated survey of GI symptoms (abdominal pain, reflux, indigestion, diarrhea, and constipation). In Study I, the symptoms of 30 recipients receiving EC-MPS (n = 15) were compared to 15 recipients receiving MMF. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of the total GSRS scores and symptom syndrome subscores revealed no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the two medications over time. A conversion study (Study II) with 29 participants, however, showed that over time, all GI symptoms improved significantly (p < 0.001) when the patients were treated with EC-MPS instead of MMF.

No abstract