학술논문
Heterogeneous indications and the need for viability assessment: An international survey on the use of machine perfusion in liver transplantation.
Document Type
Article
Author
Patrono, Damiano; Cussa, Davide; Rigo, Federica; Romagnoli, Renato; Angelico, Roberta; Bellini, Maria Irene; Bonaccorsi‐Riani, Eliano; Brüggenwirth, Isabel M. A.; Czigany, Zoltan; De Carlis, Riccardo; De Meijer, Vincent E.; Dondossola, Daniele; Eshmuminov, Dilmurodjon; Ghinolfi, Davide; Hessheimer, Amelia J.; Kollmann, Dagmar; Lai, Quirino; Lurje, Georg; Manzia, Tommaso M.; Merhabi, Arianeb
Source
Subject
*LIVER transplantation
*PERFUSION
*PRESERVATION of organs, tissues, etc.
*ISOLATION perfusion
*
*
*
Language
ISSN
0160-564X
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, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]