Improving outcomes of in situ split liver transplantation in Italy over the last 25 years

•SLT is still considered a challenging procedure and is by no means widely accepted. •Initially poor outcomes for SLT explain the early reluctance to adopt this option. •Improved results with SLT have been reported recently. •Sharing experience has been instrumental in improving outcomes. •SLT is a significant source of paediatric grafts without compromising adults. Background & Aims Split liver transplant(ation) (SLT) is still considered a challenging procedure that is by no means widely accepted. We aimed to present data on 25-year trends in SLT in Italy, and to investigate if, and to what extent, outcomes have improved nationwide during this time. Methods The study included all consecutive SLTs performed from May 1993 to December 2019, divided into three consecutive periods: 1993–2005, 2006–2014, and 2015–2019, which match changes in national allocation policies. Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival, and the relative impact of each study period. Results SLT accounted for 8.9% of all liver transplants performed in Italy. A total of 1,715 in situ split liver grafts were included in the analysis: 868 left lateral segments (LLSs) and 847 extended right grafts (ERGs). A significant improvement in patient and graft survival (p <0.001) was observed with ERGs over the three periods. Predictors of graft survival were cold ischaemia time (CIT) <6 h (p = 0.009), UNOS status 2b (p <0.001), UNOS status 3 (p = 0.009), and transplant centre volumes: 25–50 cases vs. <25 cases (p = 0.003). Patient survival was significantly higher with LLS grafts in period 2 vs. period 1 (p = 0.008). No significant improvement in graft survival was seen over the three periods, where predictors of graft survival were CIT <6 h (p = 0.007), CIT <6 h vs. ≥10 h (p = 0.019), UNOS status 2b (p = 0.038), and UNOS status 3 (p = 0.009). Retransplantation was a risk factor in split liver graft recipients, with significantly worse graft and patient survival for both types of graft (p <0.001). Conclusions Our analysis showed Italian SLT outcomes to have improved over the last 25 years. These results could help to dispel reservations regarding the use of this procedure. Impact and implications Split liver transplant(ation) (SLT) is still considered a challenging procedure and is by no means widely accepted. This study included all consecutive in situ SLTs performed in Italy from May 1993 to December 2019. With more than 1,700 cases, it is one of the largest series, examining long-term national trends in in situ SLT since its introduction. The data presented indicate that the outcomes of SLT improved during this 25-year period. Improvements are probably due to better recipient selection, refinements in surgical technique, conservative graft-to-recipient matching, and the continuous, yet carefully managed, expansion of donor selection criteria under a strict mandatory split liver allocation policy. These results could help to dispel reservations regarding the use of this procedure. Split liver transplant(ation) (SLT) is still considered a challenging procedure that is by no means widely accepted. We aimed to present data on 25-year trends in SLT in Italy, and to investigate if, and to what extent, outcomes have improved nationwide during this time. The study included all consecutive SLTs performed from May 1993 to December 2019, divided into three consecutive periods: 1993–2005, 2006–2014, and 2015–2019, which match changes in national allocation policies. Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival, and the relative impact of each study period. SLT accounted for 8.9% of all liver transplants performed in Italy. A total of 1,715 in situ split liver grafts were included in the analysis: 868 left lateral segments (LLSs) and 847 extended right grafts (ERGs). A significant improvement in patient and graft survival (p <0.001) was observed with ERGs over the three periods. Predictors of graft survival were cold ischaemia time (CIT) <6 h (p = 0.009), UNOS status 2b (p <0.001), UNOS status 3 (p = 0.009), and transplant centre volumes: 25–50 cases vs. <25 cases (p = 0.003). Patient survival was significantly higher with LLS grafts in period 2 vs. period 1 (p = 0.008). No significant improvement in graft survival was seen over the three periods, where predictors of graft survival were CIT <6 h (p = 0.007), CIT <6 h vs. ≥10 h (p = 0.019), UNOS status 2b (p = 0.038), and UNOS status 3 (p = 0.009). Retransplantation was a risk factor in split liver graft recipients, with significantly worse graft and patient survival for both types of graft (p <0.001). Our analysis showed Italian SLT outcomes to have improved over the last 25 years. These results could help to dispel reservations regarding the use of this procedure.