Background: Decisions made by transplant surgeons to decline liver grafts for local use are based on both objective and ill-defined subjective parameters. These livers may be offered and subsequently transplanted at non-local centers. We analyzed the fate of these exported livers, focusing on the outcome of grafts declined for subjective reasons. The aim is to determine whether local surgeons' concerns about inferior graft function are justified.
Methods: Over a 3-year period, 13.3% of 555 livers in our organ procurement organization (OPO) were exported and transplanted out of the local area. Donor data and reason for decline were obtained from an extensive OPO database. Objective reasons for decline were based on no appropriate matched recipient due to donor size, serologies, or malignancy with potential for spread. Subjective parameters were related to the procuring surgeon's assessment and included variables such as medical and social history, abnormal liver enzymes, older age, organ visualization, and biopsy. Recipient data were obtained from questionnaires sent to outside transplant centers.
Results: There was a significantly higher rate of nonfunction in the subjective group (17.1%), compared to the objective group (0%). One-year graft and patient survival were 79 and 83% for the objective group and 59 and 68% for the subjective group (P=NS). When donors declined for medical/social history were excluded from the subjective group, leaving only grafts declined based solely on the surgeon's assessment of graft quality, there is a significant difference in graft survival (79% for objective and 46% for this subjective subgroup, P=0.03).
Conclusions: Livers declined for local use based on subjective assessment by the procuring surgeon have a high nonfunction rate, associated with a high morbidity. Therefore, the use of these grafts should be restricted to recipients at the most urgent status.