Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current Surgery Reports Challenges in Liver Allocation

  • Solid Organ Transplant (Steve Hanish, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Surgery Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Advances in liver transplantation have revolutionized the treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. Principles of organ allocation include ensuring equity, prioritizing the sickest, and ensuring maximal benefit to the recipient.

Recent Findings

The allocation and distribution of liver transplants have also evolved over the decades but there remain significant challenges. Current practices for allocation include the use of the MELD score to determine the priority listing, while distribution is governed by geographic acuity circles based on nautical miles from a donor hospital.

Summary

Challenges in liver transplant include the availability of a scarce resource, the MELD score being an imperfect measure of acuity, and the geographic and financial burden of the transplant process. In this review, we discuss current principles of transplant and the allocation system and highlight specific challenges and pitfalls in liver transplantation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. • Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet. 2009;373(9661):423–31. (Review of principles of organ transplant and allocation.)

  2. Hassan A, Sharma P. CAQ corner: evolution of liver allocation policy. Liver Transpl. 2022;28(11):1785–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. • Polyak A, Kuo A, Sundaram V. Evolution of liver transplant organ allocation policy: current limitations and future directions. World J Hepatol. 2021;13(8):830–9. (This review discusses the liver transplant organ allocation policy and currently limitations.)

  4. Reddy V, da Graca B, Martinez E, Ruiz R, AsraniSumeet K, Testa G, et al. Single-center analysis of organ offers and workload for liver and kidney allocation. Am J Transpl. 2022;22(11):2661–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chyou D, Karp S, Shah MB, Lynch R, Goldberg DS. A 6-month report on the impact of the organ procurement and transplantation network/united network for organ sharing acuity circles policy change. Liver Transpl. 2021;27(5):756–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 18 Month Monitoring Report of Liver and Intestine Acuity Circle Allocation Removal of DSA and Region as Units of Allocation. OPTN Liver & Intestinal Transplantation Committee; 2021.

  7. Wood NL, Kernodle AB, Hartley AJ, Segev DL, Gentry SE. Heterogeneous circles for liver allocation. Hepatology. 2021;74(1):312–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wood NL, VanDerwerken DN, Segev DL, Gentry SE. Logistical burden of offers and allocation inefficiency in circle-based liver allocation. Liver Transpl. 2022.

  9. Radhakrishnan R, Chyou DE, Goldberg DS. Association of the liver acuity circle allocation policy with timing of donor procurements in the US. JAMA Surg. 2022;157(7):631–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wall AE, da Graca B, Asrani SK, Ruiz R, Fernandez H, Gupta A, et al. Cost analysis of liver acquisition fees before and after acuity circle policy implementation. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(11):1051–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wall AE, Borries T, Reddy V, Asrani SK, Testa G, Trotter J. The carbon footprint of organ acquisition in the United States. Am J Transpl. 2022;22(12):3184–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mazumder NR, Atiemo K, Daud A, Kho A, Abecassis M, Levitsky J, et al. Patients with persistently low MELD-Na scores continue to be at risk of liver-related death. Transplantation. 2020;104(7):1413–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Verna EC, Lai JC. Time for action to address the persistent sex-based disparity in liver transplant access. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(7):545–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ge J, Lai JC. Identifying a clinically relevant cutoff for height that is associated with a higher risk of waitlist mortality in liver transplant candidates. Am J Transpl. 2020;20(3):852–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ge J, Gilroy R, Lai JC. Receipt of a pediatric liver offer as the first offer reduces waitlist mortality for adult women. Hepatology. 2018;68(3):1101–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. • Kim WR, Mannalithara A, Heimbach JK, Kamath PS, Asrani SK, Biggins SW, et al. MELD 3.0: the model for end-stage liver disease updated for the modern era. Gastroenterology. 2021;161(6):1887–95.e4. (This article discusses the limitations of the current MELD score and introduces the concept of MELD 3.0.)

  17. Shah RH, Chyou D, Goldberg DS. Impact of major hepatocellular carcinoma policy changes on liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. Liver Transpl. 2022;28(12):1857–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Murken DR, Peng AW, Aufhauser DD Jr, Abt PL, Goldberg DS, Levine MH. Same policy, different impact: center-level effects of share 35 liver allocation. Liver Transpl. 2017;23(6):741–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Burton AM, Goldberg DS. Center-level and region-level variations in liver transplantation practices following acuity circles policy change. Am J Transpl. 2022;22(11):2668–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bertsimas D, Papalexopoulos T, Trichakis N, Wang Y, Hirose R, Vagefi PA. Balancing efficiency and fairness in liver transplant access: tradeoff curves for the assessment of organ distribution policies. Transplantation. 2020;104(5):981–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bertsimas D, Kung J, Trichakis N, Wang Y, Hirose R, Vagefi PA. Development and validation of an optimized prediction of mortality for candidates awaiting liver transplantation. Am J Transpl. 2019;19(4):1109–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This review article did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Digestive Health and Liver Diseases, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA

    Andrew R. Scheinberg & David S. Goldberg

Authors
  1. Andrew R. Scheinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David S. Goldberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ARS and DSG wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David S. Goldberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests with respect to authorship or publication of this manuscript.

Research Involving Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scheinberg, A.R., Goldberg, D.S. Current Surgery Reports Challenges in Liver Allocation. Curr Surg Rep 11, 277–281 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-023-00373-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-023-00373-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation