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 - Patrono, Damiano
AU - Cussa, Davide
AU - the Liver Machine Perfusion Survey Group
AU - Rigo, Federica
AU - Romagnoli, Renato
AU - Angelico, Roberta
AU - Bellini, Maria Irene
AU - Bonaccorsi-Riani, Eliano
AU - Brüggenwirth, Isabel M.A.
AU - Czigany, Zoltan
AU - De Carlis, Riccardo
AU - De Meijer, Vincent E.
AU - Dondossola, Daniele
AU - Eshmuminov, Dilmurodjon
AU - Ghinolfi, Davide
AU - Hessheimer, Amelia J.
AU - Kollmann, Dagmar
AU - Lai, Quirino
AU - Lurje, Georg
AU - Manzia, Tommaso M.
AU - Merhabi, Arianeb
AU - Melandro, Fabio
AU - Nasralla, David
AU - Nickkholgh, Arash
AU - Pagano, Duilio
AU - Rayar, Michel
AU - Saffioti, Maria Cristina
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 - Ravaioli, Matteo
AU - Selzner, Markus
AU - Spada, Marco
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123458915&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/aor.14061
DO - 10.1111/aor.14061
M3 - Article
C2 - 34460943
AN - SCOPUS:85123458915
SN - 0160-564X
VL - 46
SP - 296
EP - 305
JO - Artificial Organs
JF - Artificial Organs
IS - 2
ER -