Dear Editors,
Ischaemic type biliary lesions (ITBL) are characterised by diffuse, nonanastomotic intrahepatic biliary strictures with upstream dilatation, in the absence of other complications such as hepatic artery stenosis or ductopenic rejection [1, 2]. They are identified most commonly through magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) [3, 4]. The resulting cholestasis leads to recurrent infections, the need for repeated biliary drainage procedures and eventually a large proportion will suffer graft loss [3,4].
The exact aetiology of ITBL is still not known, however a greater rate of ITBL has been reported grafts from donors after circulatory death (DCD) [5–8], likely due to ischaemia/reperfusion injury, microvascular thromboses and/or cytotoxic injury [3, 4].
Efforts to reduce waiting lists for liver transplantation have led to increasing use of marginal grafts, including an increased use of those from DCD donors. Furthermore, a marked increase in the number of DCD donors has been observed [9], with recent national figures showing that DCD donors now make up close to half of all donors [10]. This brings the need for optimisation of these grafts to the forefront.
There is evidence to suggest that novel perfusion and preservation strategies such as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) and hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HOPE) can reduce rates of biliary complications in DCD donors [11, 12]. However, these incur extra costs to health service providers who will understandably seek reassurance that the extra expenditure required to fund these technologies is justified.
We aimed to investigate the long-term impact of ITBL on health service utility at our institution after liver transplantation with DCD grafts and in so doing propose potential savings with new technology.
To ensure long-term follow-up consecutive whole static cold storage (SCS) DCD liver transplants between 2016 and 2018 were reviewed from our prospectively maintained institutional database. To be classified as having ITBL, patients required a diagnostic magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) scan and the absence of anastomotic stricture. Those who underwent liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) were excluded due to difficulties in distinguishing recurrent PSC from ITBL on MRCP. Those with concurrent hepatic artery stenosis or thrombosis were also excluded. To compare healthcare costs between patients who developed ITBL and the standard DCD cohort, ITBL patients were matched to patients who received a DCD SCS graft during the same period and did not develop ITBL. Matching was based on age (+/− 5 years), indication for transplant and UKELD (+/- 5) at the time of listing. For ITBL and matched patients, all hospital episodes after discharge from index transplant were retrieved using the electronic hospital record. Cost codes for each procedure or episode were obtained from the latest available NHS tariffs (2022/23). Graft and patient survival was calculated from the date of transplant to the date of death, retransplantation or last follow-up.
Of 115 DCD liver transplants during the study period, 19 developed ITBL (16.5%). Graft survival was significantly lower in the ITBL group (23.4 months vs. 72.8 months; p = 0.001), with 10 (53%) of the patients requiring retransplantation.
The total hospital costs were significantly higher amongst the ITBL group, with an average cost per patient of £111,675.80 (Range: £3,116-£271,278) compared to £17,817.11 (Range: £3,982 - £93,171) in the matched “No ITBL” control group (Table 1). A large contributor to the increased cost was retransplantation, however significantly increased costs due to increased use of diagnostic imaging and procedures, such as biopsies, were also observed. In addition, the ITBL group had a markedly increased number of readmission bed days (1006 days vs. 66 days; p = 0.002) (Table 1).
TABLE 1
| Tertiary centre hospital episode | Unit cost | NHS tariff code | No ITBL (n = 19) | ITBL (n = 19) | p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean cost per pt | N | Mean cost per pt | |||||
| Subsequent Operative Procedures | ||||||||
| Retransplant | £80,000 | N/A | 0 | £0 | 10 | £42,105.26 | 0.012 | |
| Incisional hernia repair | £6,760 | FF60A | 3 | £1,067 | 0 | £0.00 | 0.418 | |
| Hepaticojejunostomy | £21,495 | GA03C | 0 | £0 | 1 | £1,131.32 | 0.795 | |
| Laparotomy and washout | £21,495 | GA03C | 1 | £1,131 | 3 | £3,393.95 | 0.583 | |
| Interventional Radiology | ||||||||
| ERCP | £9,653 | GB09D | 4 | £2,032 | 20 | £10,161.05 | 0.234 | |
| PTC drainage/imaging | £1,830 | YG06Z | 5 | £482 | 4 | £385.26 | 1 | |
| TIPPS with stent | £5,274 | YA10Z | 0 | £0 | 1 | £277.58 | 0.795 | |
| Angiogram+/-stenting | £5,274 | YA10Z | 2 | £555 | 1 | £277.58 | 1 | |
| Hepatic venogram | £5,274 | YA10Z | 1 | £278 | 6 | £1,665.47 | 1 | |
| CT guided drain | £10,005 | YF04A | 2 | £1,053 | 4 | £2,106.32 | 0.603 | |
| US guided drain | £10,005 | YF04A | 4 | £2,106 | 19 | £10,005.00 | 0.402 | |
| Fluoroscopic guided drain | £10,005 | YF04A | 0 | £0 | 2 | £1,053.16 | 0.795 | |
| CT liver ablation | £7,563 | YG01A | 1 | £398 | 0 | £0.00 | 0.795 | |
| Diagnostic Radiology | ||||||||
| CT | £95 | RD24Z | 28 | £140 | 73 | £365.00 | 0.146 | |
| MRI Liver | £178 | RD03Z | 3 | £28 | 8 | £74.95 | 0.37 | |
| MRCP | £116 | RD01A | 11 | £67 | 46 | £280.84 | <0.001 | |
| US abdomen | £55 | RD42Z | 105 | £304 | 205 | £593.42 | 0.006 | |
| US guided biopsy | £907 | YF05Z | 5 | £239 | 22 | £1,050.21 | 0.043 | |
| NM | £1,045 | YG12Z | 0 | £0 | 2 | £110.00 | 0.583 | |
| CXR | £28 | N/A | 74 | £109 | 164 | £241.68 | 0.085 | |
| AXR | £28 | N/A | 0 | £0 | 9 | £13.26 | 0.172 | |
| PICC | £1,729 | YR42A | 2 | £182 | 13 | £1,183.00 | 0.37 | |
| Transjugular biopsy | £1,676 | YG10Z | 1 | £88 | 4 | £352.84 | 1 | |
| Tubogram | £1,045 | YG12Z | 0 | £0 | 2 | £110.00 | 0.795 | |
| Follow-up | ||||||||
| OPA | £206 | 306 | 622 | £7,114 | 650 | £7,417.37 | 1 | |
| Readmission ITU Bed Days | £2,737 | N/A | 5 | £720.26 | 67 | £9,651.53 | ||
| Readmission Ward Bed Days | £397 | N/A | 61 | £1,274.58 | 939 | £19,620.16 | 0.002 | |
| Total cost | ||||||||
| - | - | - | £17,817.11 | - | £111,675.80 | 0.007 | ||
Comparison of healthcare costs after index liver transplantation between ITBL and no ITBL controls.
Bold values indicates the significant at the p < 0.05 level.
This cost-utility analysis demonstrates that the development of ITBL after DCD liver transplantation leads to significantly increased healthcare costs compared to matched “No ITBL” controls. Whilst decisions to fund novel perfusion and preservation technologies are complex, these findings show that ITBL represent a significant cost burden to the health service after liver transplantation and should be considered in future funding decisions.
The evidence for the efficacy of novel perfusion and preservation strategies in reducing non-anastomotic strictures (NAS) in DCD grafts is growing. NRP, which involves restoring circulation of warm, oxygenated blood in a controlled DCD setting [13, 14], has been shown to reduce ischaemic cholangiopathy [13], with two recent meta-analysis showing that NRP significantly reduces the NAS rate in DCD grafts compared to SCS [12, 15]. Recent evidence, including a randomised controlled trial, has shown that HOPE also reduces the risk of NAS after DCD donation compared to static cold storage [16–18]. Given that this study demonstrates a significant increase in follow-up and treatment costs for patients that develop ITBL, it follows that any novel perfusion and preservation strategies that reduce ITBL after DCD liver transplantation will significantly reduce follow-up costs.
These technologies will also have an impact upon waiting lists, which continue to grow [19]. From the aspect of donation, the latest figures from the United Kingdom (UK) show a decrease of 2% in the number donors after brain death (DBD) whilst the number of DCD donors has increased by 7% [19]. It is therefore incumbent upon the liver transplantation community to expand the use of DCD grafts in a safe manner. From the recipient side, through a reduction in ITBL, fewer grafts will be required for retransplantation.
Decisions of whether to fund new technologies to optimise DCD grafts, such as NRP and HOPE, are complex and this study only looks at one aspect. For example, in establishing a new service there are training, staff and consumable costs that must be accounted for. However, evidence that novel perfusion and strategies such as NRP and HOPE can both improve outcomes of DCD grafts and increase the number of DCD grafts that can be used safely continues to grow. Health service providers must therefore now weigh up the costs of growing waiting lists and complications, which are more prevalent with DCD SCS grafts, and compare these to the costs of introducing novel perfusion and preservation strategies for DCD grafts more widely.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the study involving humans in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent to participate in this study was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
Manuscript writing: JH-S, GC, AH, AS, and KR. Data collection: JH-S and MB. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
References
1.
Sanchez‐Urdazpal L Gores GJ Ward EM Maus TP Wahlstrom HE Moore SB et al Ischemic-Type Biliary Complications after Orthotopic Liver Transplantation. Hepatology (1992) 16:49–53. 10.1002/HEP.1840160110
2.
Jiang T Li C Duan B Liu Y Wang L Lu S . Risk Factors for and Management of Ischemic-type Biliary Lesions Following Orthotopic Liver Transplantation: A Single Center Experience. Ann Hepatol (2016) 15:41–6. 10.5604/16652681.1184204
3.
Hessheimer AJ Cárdenas A García-Valdecasas JC Fondevila C . Can We Prevent Ischemic-type Biliary Lesions in Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death Liver Transplantation?Liver Transpl (2016) 22:1025–33. 10.1002/LT.24460
4.
Buis CI Hoekstra H Verdonk RC Porte RJ . Causes and Consequences of Ischemic-type Biliary Lesions after Liver Transplantation. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg (2006) 13:517–24. 10.1007/S00534-005-1080-2
5.
Den Dulk AC Sebib Korkmaz K De Rooij BJF Sutton ME Braat AE Inderson A et al High Peak Alanine Aminotransferase Determines Extra Risk for Nonanastomotic Biliary Strictures after Liver Transplantation with Donation after Circulatory Death. Transpl Int (2015) 28:492–501. 10.1111/TRI.12524
6.
O’Neill S Roebuck A Khoo E Wigmore SJ Harrison EM . A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Outcomes Including Biliary Complications in Donation after Cardiac Death Liver Transplantation. Transpl Int (2014) 27:1159–74. 10.1111/TRI.12403
7.
Callaghan CJ Charman SC Muiesan P Powell JJ Gimson AE Van Der Meulen JHP et al Outcomes of Transplantation of Livers from Donation after Circulatory Death Donors in the UK: A Cohort Study. BMJ Open (2013) 3:e003287. 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2013-003287
8.
Kalisvaart M De Haan JE Polak WG Metselaar HJ Wijnhoven BPL Ijzermans JNM et al Comparison Postoperative Outcomes Between Donation After Circulatory Death Donation After Brain Death Liver Transplant Using Compr Complication Index. Ann Surg (2017) 266:772–8. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002419
9.
Summers DM Counter C Johnson RJ Murphy PG Neuberger JM Bradley JA . Is the Increase in DCD Organ Donors in the United Kingdom Contributing to a Decline in DBD Donors?Transplantation (2010) 90:1506–10. 10.1097/TP.0B013E3182007B33
10.
Donation after Circulatory Death - ODT Clinical - NHS Blood and Transplant. (2024). Available online at: https://www.odt.nhs.uk/deceased-donation/best-practice-guidance/donation-after-circulatory-death/ (Accessed January 29, 2024).
11.
O’Neill S Srinivasa S Callaghan CJ Watson CJE Dark JH Fisher AJ et al Novel Organ Perfusion and Preservation Strategies in Transplantation - where Are We Going in the United Kingdom? Transplantation (2020) 104:1813–24. 10.1097/TP.0000000000003106
12.
Liang A Cheng W Cao P Cai S Zhang L Zhong K et al Effects of Machine Perfusion Strategies on Different Donor Types in Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Surg (2023) 109:3617–30. 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000661
13.
Watson CJE Hunt F Messer S Currie I Large S Sutherland A et al In Situ Normothermic Perfusion of Livers in Controlled Circulatory Death Donation May Prevent Ischemic Cholangiopathy and Improve Graft Survival. Am J Transpl (2019) 19:1745–58. 10.1111/AJT.15241
14.
Truog RD Flescher A Ladin K . Normothermic Regional Perfusion—The Next Frontier in Organ Transplants?JAMA (2023) 329:2123–4. 10.1001/JAMA.2023.9294
15.
Mastrovangelis C Frost C Hort A Laurence J Pang T Pleass H . Normothermic Regional Perfusion in Controlled Donation after Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transpl Int (2024) 37:13263. 10.3389/ti.2024.13263
16.
van Rijn R Schurink IJ de Vries Y van den Berg AP Cortes Cerisuelo M Darwish Murad S et al Hypothermic Machine Perfusion in Liver Transplantation — A Randomized Trial. N Engl J Med (2021) 384:1391–401. 10.1056/NEJMoa2031532
17.
Parente A Tirotta F Pini A Eden J Dondossola D Manzia TM et al Machine Perfusion Techniques for Liver Transplantation - A Meta-Analysis of the First Seven Randomized-Controlled Trials. J Hepatol (2023) 79:1201–13. 10.1016/J.JHEP.2023.05.027
18.
Schlegel A Porte R Dutkowski P . Protective Mechanisms and Current Clinical Evidence of Hypothermic Oxygenated Machine Perfusion (HOPE) in Preventing Post-Transplant Cholangiopathy. J Hepatol (2022) 76:1330–47. 10.1016/J.JHEP.2022.01.024
19.
NHS Blood and Transplant (2023). Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation. 10.1017/9781316092675.018
Summary
Keywords
donation after circulatory death (DCD), biliary stricture, machine perfusion, costs and benefits, liver transplant
Citation
Halle-Smith JM., Burak M, Clarke G, Hann A, Suthananthan A and Roberts KJ. (2025) The Impact of Ischaemic Type Biliary Lesions on Healthcare Costs After Liver Transplantation With Grafts From Donors After Circulatory Death. Transpl. Int. 38:14719. doi: 10.3389/ti.2025.14719
Received
03 April 2025
Accepted
26 August 2025
Published
22 September 2025
Volume
38 - 2025
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Halle-Smith, Burak, Clarke, Hann, Suthananthan and Roberts.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: James M. Halle-Smith, j.halle-smith@bham.ac.uk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.