In deceased-donor liver transplantation, small- and large-for-size transplants are associated with elevated risk of graft loss (1). Despite this, deceased-donor liver offers are made without regard to size-matching. Additionally, the deceased donor pool is 59% male, and thus female candidates might face more size-inappropriate offers than male candidates. We aimed to characterize the relationship between the volumes of offered deceased-donor livers and the liver volume needed to treat each candidate’s liver disease. Using SRTR data, we calculated estimated liver volume (eLV) for each offered and accepted liver and eLV needed for each candidate (candidate need). We used the equation developed by Johnson et al, (2) based on body surface area (BSA):
Median eLV among female candidates was lower than eLV among male candidates (Figure 1, p<0.001). Median eLV of livers offered to both female and male candidates was clinically similar (blue dashed lines). Median eLV of livers offered to female candidates was larger than female candidates’ need (p<0.001), and median eLV of livers offered to males was smaller than male candidates’ need (p<0.001). Women accepted livers from a narrower distribution and of a smaller eLV than that which they were offered (red dotted lines, p value<0.001). Men accepted livers from a similar distribution to that which they were offered (p=0.3). The difference between eLV of offered livers and eLV that female and male candidates require might explain disparities in liver offer acceptance (3, 4). Incorporating size-matching in deceased-donor allocation might reduce sex disparities driven by inappropriately sized offers.
Figure 1.
Estimated liver volume (eLV) of livers that female and male candidates need to treat their end-stage liver disease, of livers offered to female and male candidates, and of livers accepted by female and male candidates; 2010–2015.
Acknowledgments
Funding
Dr. Haugen is supported by the grant number F32AG053025 from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Massie, Dr. Segev, and Dr. Gentry are supported by grants numbered K01DK101677, K24DK101828, and R01DK111233 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), respectively. J.M. Ruck is supported by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.
Abbreviations
- BSA
body surface area
- eLV
estimated liver volume
- SRTR
Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients
Footnotes
Authorship
M.G. Bowring participated in research design, data analysis, and writing the manuscript. J.M. Ruck and C.E. Haugen participated in research design and writing and editing of the manuscript. A.M. Massie, D.L. Segev, and S.E. Gentry participated in research design, data analysis, analytical support, and editing of the manuscript.
Disclosures
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Fukazawa K, Nishida S. Size mismatch in liver transplantation. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016;23(8):457–66. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Johnson TN, Tucker GT, Tanner MS, Rostami-Hodjegan A. Changes in liver volume from birth to adulthood: a meta-analysis. Liver Transpl. 2005;11(12):1481–93. doi: 10.1002/lt.20519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Nephew LD, Goldberg D, Lewis JD, Abt P, Bryan M, Forde KA. Exception points and body size contribute to gender disparity in liver transplantation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.033. [published online March 10, 2017] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mindikoglu AL, Emre SH, Magder LS. Impact of estimated liver volume and liver weight on gender disparity in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2013;19(1):89–95. doi: 10.1002/lt.23553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]