Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40416988›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2025

Comparisons of liver transplant from DCD outcomes in high-utilization centers versus low-utilization centers in the US: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Joao Lucas Lima Manzi, Eduarda Saba Oliveira, Sarah Rombach, Vitor Turra, Simone Zaragoza, Yanik Bababekov, Trevor Nydam, Alfred Joseph Tector, Rodrigo Vianna, Phillipe Abreu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Improving outcomes in donation after circulatory death vs. donation after brain death liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Joao Lucas Lima Manzi *Miami Transplant Institute, Jackson Memorial Hospital, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
Eduarda Saba Oliveira *Miami Transplant Institute, Jackson Memorial Hospital, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
Sarah RombachMiami Transplant Institute, Jackson Memorial Hospital, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
Vitor TurraMiami Transplant Institute, Jackson Memorial Hospital, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
Simone ZaragozaMiami Transplant Institute, Jackson Memorial Hospital, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
Yanik BababekovDivision of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, United States.
Trevor NydamDivision of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, United States.
Alfred Joseph TectorMiami Transplant Institute, Jackson Memorial Hospital, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
Rodrigo Vianna *Miami Transplant Institute, Jackson Memorial Hospital, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.
Phillipe Abreu *Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose/Objective: Donation after Cardiac Death (DCD) grafts are considered to be inferiors compared to Donation after Brain Death (DBD) grafts. Consequently, many transplant centers employ highly selective criteria for utilizing DCD, while others use them more liberally, potentially gaining greater expertise with this procedure. This disparity in approach raises questions about the impact of organ selection versus the benefits of increased experience with DCD organs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate various outcomes in centers with high and low utilization rates of DCD. Materials/Methods: Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to May 24th, 2023, for studies related to liver transplantation (LT). This search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria focused on studies involving controlled DCD published within the last five years, and reporting on at least one of the outcomes of interest. Data was extracted and analyzed using a random-effects generalized linear mixed model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcomes assessed were patient survival and graft survival. Heterogeneity among the included studies was evaluated using the I2 test, with I2>40% considered significant, and further explored through influence analysis. Subgroup meta-analysis by DCD utilization rate was done for each outcome. An analysis of the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN) database was performed on October 30th to determine the DCD rates and percentiles. Results: Seven studies encompassing 898 patients were analyzed. In parallel, data from 151 centers were examined using the OPTN database, determining the rates of DCD utilization in each center over the past five years. Centers from the seven studies were divided into five high-utilization centers (HUC) and two low-utilization centers (LUC), with the 80th percentile (13.33% DCDs/Total LT) used as the threshold for high-utilization. Overall, the 1-year patient survival rate was 94.5% (95%CI: 92.4-96.1; I2 = 0%). HUCs had a rate of 94.6% (95%CI: 92.4-96.1; I2 = 0%), and LUCs had 93.7% (95%CI: 79.1-99.2; I2 = 0%), with a p=0.84. The overall 1-year graft survival rate was 90.6% (95% CI: 88.4-92.4; I2 = 0%). HUCs showed a 1-year graft survival of 90.9% (95%CI: 88.4-92.9; I2 = 0%), and LUCs showed 89.4% (95%CI: 83.8-93.2; I2 = 0%), p=0.54. The overall incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy was 10.3% (95% CI:7.9-13.3; I2 = 0%). The total rate of primary nonfunction was 1.5% (95% CI: 0.7-3.1%; I2 = 46%). Conclusion: Our findings indicate no statistical difference in outcomes between high and low-utilization centers for DCD liver transplants, possibly suggesting that the higher selection in low-utilization centers is compensated by a greater experience in high-utilization centers.

Indexed as

Liver TransplantationTissue and Organ ProcurementBrain DeathGraft SurvivalHumansTissue DonorsTreatment OutcomeUnited Statescenter volumedonor after cardiac deathliver transplantliver transplantationorgan donationrapid recovery DCD

Identifiers

PMID40416988
PMCPMC12098045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.