Cost-effectiveness of Dual Hypothermic Oxygenated Machine Perfusion Versus Static Cold Storage in DCD Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND

Ex situ machine perfusion of the donor liver, such as dual hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (DHOPE), is increasingly used in liver transplantation. Although DHOPE reduces ischemia/reperfusion-related complications after liver transplantation, data on cost-effectiveness are lacking. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DHOPE in donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation of DHOPE versus static cold storage (SCS) based on a multicenter randomized controlled trial in DCD liver transplantation (DHOPE-DCD trial; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02584283). All patients enrolled in the 3 participating centers in the Netherlands were included. Costs related to the transplant procedure, hospital stay, readmissions, and outpatients treatments up to 1 y posttransplant were calculated. The cost for machine perfusion was calculated using 3 scenarios: (1) costs for machine perfusion, (2) machine perfusion costs plus costs for personnel, and (3) scenario 2 plus depreciation expenses for a dedicated organ perfusion room.

RESULTS

Of 119 patients, 60 received a liver after DHOPE and 59 received a liver after SCS alone. The mean total cost per patient up to 1 y posttransplant was €126 221 for the SCS group and €110 794 for the DHOPE group. The most significant reduction occurred in intensive care costs (28.4%), followed by nonsurgical interventions (24.3%). In cost scenario 1, DHOPE was cost-effective after 1 procedure. In scenarios 2 and 3, cost-effectiveness was achieved after 25 and 30 procedures per year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional SCS, machine perfusion using DHOPE is cost-effective in DCD liver transplantation, reducing the total medical costs up to 1 y posttransplant.