The impact of advancing donor age on histologic recurrence of hepatitis C infection: The perils of ignored maternal advice
Authors: Charlton Michael 
Published: June 2010

Abstract

Recurrent hepatitis occurs in the majority of patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis, with progression to cirrhosis in up to 30% after 5 years. Based on these data, a decrease in survival can be anticipated with prolonged follow-up. Furthermore, posttransplantation HCV-fibrosis progression has been shown in recent years to increase. Our aims were (1) to describe the natural history of HCV-infected recipients, particularly to determine whether survival has decreased in recent years; (2) to compare this outcome with that observed in non-HCV-infected cirrhosis controls; and (3) to determine the factors associated with disease severity and survival. Among 522 cirrhotic patients undergoing transplantation between 1991 and 2000, 283 (54%) were infected with HCV. Yearly biopsies were performed in these recipients and at 1 and 5 years in the remainder. With similar follow-up, the percentage of deaths in the HCV(+) group was signifi cantly higher than in the HCV-group (37% vs. 22%, P <.001), and patient survival was lower (77%, 61%, 55% vs. 87%, 76%, 70% at 1, 5, and 7 years, respectively; P =.0001). Although survival has increased in the HCV- group in recent years, it has significantly decreased in HCV recipients (P <.0001). The main cause of death among the latter was decompensated graft cirrhosis (n = 23/105, 22%), whereas that of HCV-patients was infections (n = 10/52, 19%). Reasons for the recent worse outcome in HCV+ recipients include the increased donor age and stronger immunosuppression. In conclusion, patient survival is lower among HCV+ recipients than among HCV- ones and has been decreasing in recent years. The aging of donors is a major contributor to this worse outcome.

Background and Aim:
Cirrhosis with liver failure due to hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the most common indication for liver transplantation (LT). Reinfection of the transplanted liver by HCV is inevitable, and aggressive hepatitis with accelerated progression to graft cirrhosis may be observed. Of concern, recent reports suggest that the outcome of LT for HCV may have deteriorated in recent years. Determinants of rate of progression to cirrhosis in the immunocompetent non-transplant patient are well defined, and the most powerful determinant is patient age at the time of infection. Following LT for HCV, recipient age does not affect outcome of HCV reinfection. However, the impact of donor age on graft fibrosis progression rate following LT has not been examined.

Methods:
We have examined post-transplant biopsies to assess histological activity, including fibrosis stage (scored 0-6 units, 6 representing established cirrhosis), and to calculate fibrosis progression rates in 101 post-transplant specimens from 56 HCV infected LT patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses examined the impact of parameters including recipient and donor age and sex on fibrosis progression rate, and on predicted time to cirrhosis.

Results:
For the cohort, median fibrosis progression rate was 0.78 units/year, and median interval from transplantation to development of cirrhosis was 7.7 years. In multivariate analysis, donor age (not recipient age) was a powerful determinant (P = 0.02) of fibrosis progression rate. When the liver donor was younger than 40 years, median progression rate was 0.6 units/year and interval to cirrhosis was 10 years. When the donor was aged 50 years or more, median progression rate was 2.7 units/year and interval to cirrhosis only 2.2 years. During the observation period there has been a significant increase in donor age (P = 0.01) but date of transplantation per se is not a determinant of progression rate when included in multivariate analyses.

Conclusions:
Donor age has a major influence on graft outcome following transplantation for HCV. The changing organ donor profile will affect the long term results of LT for HCV. These observations have important implications for donor liver allocation