The impact of center volume on the utilization and outcomes of machine perfusion technology in liver transplantation: An international survey

Abstract

IntroductionMachine perfusion (MP) was developed to expand the donor pool and improve liver transplantation (LT) outcomes. Despite optimal results in clinical trials, the real‐world MP benefit in centers with low‐/mid‐volume activity (LVCs) is still being determined.MethodsOnline survey on MP for LT, distributed to worldwide LT‐centers representatives. Variables of interest included logistics, technicalities, and outcomes. Responders were grouped into high‐volume centers (HVCs) (>60 LTs/year) and LVCs and results compared.ResultsSixty‐seven centers were included, 36 HVCs and 31 LVCs. Significant differences in MP regarded: (I) existence of an established program (80.6% vs. 41.9%; p = 0.02), (II) presence of a dedicated perfusionist (58.3% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.006), (III) duration (>4 h: 47.2% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.01), (IV) routine use (20%–40% vs. 5%–20%; p = 0.002), (V) graft utilization (>50%: 75% vs. 51.6%; p = 0.009), (VI) 90‐day patient‐survival (90%–100% vs. 50%–90%; p = 0.001) and (VII) subjectively perceived benefit (always vs. only in selected ECD; p = 0.009). Concordance was found for indications, type, viability tests, graft‐salvage, 90‐day graft‐loss, and major‐complications.ConclusionsThis study captured a picture of MP in real‐world LT‐practice. Significant disparities have surfaced between LVCs and HVCs regarding logistics, utilization, and results. To close this gap, efforts should be made to more efficiently deliver dedicated support, training and mentoring to LVC teams adopting MP technology.