Recipient and Donor Selection and Transplant Logistics: The European Perspective

  • Gabriela A. Berlakovich
  • Gerd R. Silberhumer


The intermediate and long-term outcomes following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) have improved significantly over the years, with 1- and 5-year patient survival rates of 90% and 75%, respectively. This success resulted in growing numbers of potential transplant recipients on waiting lists. The number of transplantable organs remained stable over the last decades and the increased demand could not be met. In recent years this discrepancy between patients listed for liver transplantation and available organs decreased as less candidates were entered on the waiting lists due to changes in listing policies (Fig. 8.1). Nevertheless wait list mortality remains a major problem regardless of various organ allocation policies adopted by transplant programs. This chapter will describe the current situation in Europe with special emphasis on efforts to increase the availability of liver grafts.


MELD score Child score Organ allocation Graft procurement Donor selection Donation after cardiac death 


  1. 1.
    Wiesner RH, McDiarmid SV, Kamath PS, et al. MELD and PELD: application of survival models to liver allocation. Liver Transpl. 2001;7:567–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desai NM, Mange KC, Crawford MD, et al. Predicting outcome after liver transplantation: utility of the model for end-stage liver disease and a newly derived discrimination function. Transplantation. 2004;77:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Onaca NN, Levy MF, Sanchez EQ, et al. A correlation between the pretransplantation MELD score and mortality in the first two years after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2003;9:117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Györi GP, Silberhumer GR, Rahmel A, et al. Impact of dynamic changes in MELD score on survival after liver transplantation – a Eurotransplant registry analysis. Liver Int. 2016;36:1011–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burroughs A, Sabin CA, Rolles K, et al. 3-month and 12-month mortality after first liver transplant in adults in Europe: predictive models for outcome. Lancet. 2006;367:225–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg-Grasham JL, et al. Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:783–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Silberhumer GR, Pokorny H, Hetz H, et al. Combination of extended donor criteria and changes in the model for end-stage liver disease score predict patient survival and primary dysfunction in liver transplantation: a retrospective analysis. Transplantation. 2007;83:588–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scandiatransplant. Accessed June 2016.
  9. 9.
    NHS Blood and Transplant. Accessed June 2016.
  10. 10.
    Eurotransplant International Foundation. Accessed June 2016.
  11. 11.
    Matesanz R, Dominguez-Gil B, Coll E, de la Rosa G, Marazuela R. Spanish experience as a leading country: what kind of measures were taken? Transpl Int. 2011;24:333–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Organ procurement and transplantation network. Accessed June 2016.
  13. 13.
    European liver transplant registry. Accessed June 2016.
  14. 14.
    Dawwas MF, David C, Barber KM, et al. Developing a liver transplantation donor risk index in a national registry. Hepatology. 2007;46:235A.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Busuttil RW, Tanaka K. The utility of marginal donors in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2003;9:651–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Punch JD, Hayes DH, LaPorte FB, et al. Organ donation and utilization in the United States, 1996–2005. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:1327–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cameron AM, Ghobrial RM, Yersiz H, et al. Optimal utilization of donor grafts with extended criteria: a single-center experience in over 1000 liver transplants. Ann Surg. 2006;243:748–53. discussion 753–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mirza DF, Gunson BK, Da Silva RF, et al. Policies in Europe on “marginal quality” donor livers. Lancet. 1994;344:1480–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cuende N, Miranda B, Canon JF, et al. Donor characteristics associated with liver graft survival. Transplantation. 2005;79:1445–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silberhumer GR, de Vries E, Adam R, et al. Are there new definitions of extended liver donor criteria at the beginning of the 3rd millennium? Experiences from 6133 donors. Liver Transpl. 2010;16:S102.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCormack L, Petrowsky H, Jochum W, et al. Use of severely steatotic grafts in liver transplantation: a matched case–control study. Ann Surg. 2007;246:940–6. discussion 946–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Totsuka E, Dodson F, Urakami A, et al. Influence of high donor serum sodium levels on early postoperative graft function in human liver transplantation: effect of correction of donor hypernatremia. Liver Transpl Surg. 1999;5:421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monbaliu D, Pirenne J, Talbot D. Liver transplantation using donation after cardiac death donors. J Hepatol. 2012;56:474–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Domínguez-Gil B, Haase-Kromwijk B, Van Leiden H, et al. Current situation of donation after circulatory death in European countries. Transpl Int. 2011;24:676–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Vera ME, Lopez-Solis R, Dvorchik I, et al. Liver transplantation using donation after cardiac death donors: long-term follow-up from a single center. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:773–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Detry O, Donckier V, Lucidi V, et al. Liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: initial Belgian experience 2003–2007. Transpl Int. 2010;23:611–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weeder PD, van Rijn R, Porte RJ. Machine perfusion in liver transplantation as a tool to prevent non-anastomotic biliary strictures: rationale, current evidence and future directions. J Hepatol. 2015;63:265–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vairetti M, Ferrigno A, Rizzo V, et al. Correlation between the liver temperature employed during machine perfusion and reperfusion damage: role of Ca2+. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:494–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Westerkamp AC, Karimian N, Matton APM, et al. Oxygenated hypothermic machine perfusion after static cold storage improves hepatobiliary function of extended criteria donor livers. Transplantation. 2016;100:825–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verhoeven CJ, Farid WRR, de Jonge J, et al. Biomarkers to assess graft quality during conventional and machine preservation in liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2014;61:672–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dubbeld J, Hoekstra H, Farid W, et al. Similar liver transplantation survival with selected cardiac death donors and brain death donors. Br J Surg. 2010;97:744–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reich DJ, Mulligan DC, Abt PL, et al. ASTS Recommended Practrice Guidelines for controlled donation after cardiac death organ procurement and transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:2004–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Andrews PA, Burnapp L, Manas D. Summary of the British Transplantation Society guidelines for transplantation from donors after deceased circulatory death. Transplantation. 2014;97:265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee SG. Asian contribution to living donor liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;21:572–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriela A. Berlakovich
    • 1
  • Gerd R. Silberhumer
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Transplantation, Department of SurgeryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations