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, alpha = 0.11; Q2, alpha = 0.14; Q3, alpha = 0.12, Q4, alpha = 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.

Heterogeneous indications and the need for viability assessment: An international survey on the use of machine perfusion in liver transplantation

Patrono, Damiano;Cussa, Davide;Rigo, Federica;Romagnoli, Renato
2021

Abstract

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, alpha = 0.11; Q2, alpha = 0.14; Q3, alpha = 0.12, Q4, alpha = 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.
1
10
ex situ organ perfusion; machine perfusion; normothermic regional perfusion; organ preservation; viability assessment
Patrono, Damiano; Cussa, Davide; Rigo, Federica; Romagnoli, Renato
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
aor.14061.pdf

Accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 726.96 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
726.96 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1807955
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact