Author Andrea Schlegel was erroneously spelled as Andrea Schegel.
There was a mistake in the footnote of Table 4 as published. The abbreviation for flavin mononucleotide was misspelled. The corrected footnote of Table 4 appears below.
“COR, continuous oxygenated rewarming; DCD, donation after circulatory death; DHOPE, dual hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; FMN, flavin mononucleotide; HMP, hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion; NAS, non-anastomotic strictures; NMP, normothermic machine perfusion; NRP, normothermic regional perfusion; SCS, static cold storage; PNF, primary nonfunction”.
In the abstract, errors occurred in the transfer of values from the tables to the text. This has been corrected to read:
“Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) (3.0%–21.7%), NMP (2.3%–35.6%), and sequential NRP-NMP (0.1%–19.2%) increased significantly (p < 0.001).”
“Multivariable Cox regression showed that static cold storage (HR = 1.19), donor age 50–69 versus 18–49, and recipient age (HR = 1.04) increased the risk of graft loss after adjustment.”
Errors occurred in the transfer of values from the tables to the text.
Corrections were made to the Results section, Demographics subsection paragraphs 4 & 5:
“During our study period, total LT rates increased by 62.7% (from 8,497 LTs in 2016 to 13,824 in 2025). By the end of 2025, DCD allografts (n = 5,669) accounted for 43.2% of deceased-donor allografts (n = 13,116). In the MP era, donors ≥50 (n = 4,451) accounted for the largest share of DCD donors (61.35%) (Figure 2). DCD SCS dropped from 94.5% to 21.2% in the MP era, while there was a steep rise in NRP (3.0% vs. 21.7%), NMP (2.3% vs. 35.6%), and sequential NRP-NMP deployment (0.1% vs. 19.2%) (p < 0.001) (Figure 3, Table 1).
The MP-era was associated with 44.6% decrease in median waitlist time (112–62 days, p < 0.001) (Table 1). The primary LT indication shifted from hepatocellular carcinoma (27.2%) to alcohol-associated liver disease (35.9%) (p < 0.001). The median donor WIT increased from 23.0 to 31.0 min”
Corrections were made to the Survival outcomes subsection paragraph 3:
“In multivariable Cox regression, SCS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.00–1.41, p = 0.045) and increasing recipient age (HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03–1.04, p < 0.001) were associated with increased risk of mortality when adjusted for donor age group, WIT, donor BMI, recipient BMI, diagnosis, and laboratory MELD score (Table 3). SCS (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.13–1.48, p < 0.001), donor age 50–69 years (vs. 18–49 years), and increasing recipient age (HR = 1.01, 95%CI: 1.01–1.02, p < 0.001) were also associated with increased risk of graft loss when adjusted for WIT, donor BMI, recipient BMI, diagnosis, and laboratory MELD score (Table 3).”
Corrections were made to the Discussion section paragraph 3:
“With a turning point in 2021, older DCD donors have moved from a marginal donor group to the primary driver of DCD LT volumes. In the pre-MP era, approximately 80% of DCD livers were from donors <50 years, with the remainder aged 50–69; no transplanted livers were from donors ≥70. In the MP era, the share of DCD donors aged ≥50 increased more than 2-fold (from 19.3% to 53.4%). DCD donors ≥60 rose by 7.8-fold (from 3.5% to 27.3%) (Table 1). The utilization of older DCD donors (≥50 years) has outpaced that of younger DCD donors, becoming the dominant DCD donor source in 2025 (n = 3,478; 61.3%) (Figures 1, 2).”
Authors Melissa Chen, Sorabh Kapoor, Esteban Calderon, and Chirag Desai were erroneously assigned to the affiliation Division of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, NC, United States. The correct affiliation is Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Authors Andrew M. Moon, Sasha Deutch-Link, Hersh Shroff, Neil D. Shah, Oren K. Fix, and A. Sidney Barritt were erroneously assigned to the affiliation Division of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, NC, United States. The correct affiliation is Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Author Amit K Mathur was erroneously assigned the affiliation Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. The correct affiliation is Division of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, NC, United States.
The original article has been updated.
Summary
Keywords
donation after circulatory death, dynamic preservation, hypothermic oxygenated perfusion, liver transplantation, machine perfusion
Citation
Giorgakis E, Ziogas IA, Moris D, Varvoglis DN, Theocharopoulos C, Yoeli D, Adams MA, Barbas AS, Montenovo MI, Chen M, Kapoor S, Calderon E, Moon AM, Deutch-Link S, Shroff H, Shah ND, Fix OK, Barritt AS, Mathur AK, Nydam TL, Desai CS, Martins PN and Schlegel A (2026) Correction: Transplantation of older DCD livers in the machine perfusion era: a U.S. cohort study. Transpl. Int. 39:17169. doi: 10.3389/ti.2026.17169
Received
18 June 2026
Revised
19 June 2026
Accepted
22 June 2026
Published
08 July 2026
Volume
39 - 2026
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Giorgakis, Ziogas, Moris, Varvoglis, Theocharopoulos, Yoeli, Adams, Barbas, Montenovo, Chen, Kapoor, Calderon, Moon, Deutch-Link, Shroff, Shah, Fix, Barritt, Mathur, Nydam, Desai, Martins and Schlegel.
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: Emmanouil Giorgakis, emmanouil_giorgakis@med.unc.edu
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.