Title: Donor-recipient age mismatch and long-term graft outcomes after adolescent liver transplant
Source: JAMA Network Open 2026, 9 (1): e2552779
Date of publication: January 2026
Publication type: Retrospective case-control study
Abstract: Importance: Donor-recipient age mismatch is an established risk factor in adult liver transplants (LTs), yet its effect in adolescents, who require long-term graft durability, has not been fully characterized. Despite pediatric prioritization, some adolescent donor livers are allocated to adults, limiting access to age-matched grafts for adolescents.
Objective: To assess whether a donor-recipient age difference of 10 or more years is associated with inferior graft survival in LTs among adolescents and to estimate the benefits of broader geographic sharing of adolescent donor livers.
Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective, registry-based case-control study used data from the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network database, a nationwide US transplant registry. Participants were adolescents aged 12 to 17 years who received liver-only grafts from donation after brain death between March 1, 2002, and December 31, 2024, with follow-up until April 4, 2025. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed on graft type and size mismatch, donor sex, donor-recipient sex mismatch, transplant center volume, and recipient variables.
Exposure: Donor-recipient age difference of 10 or more years (age-mismatched graft) vs less than 10 years (age-matched graft).
Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was 10-year graft survival. The secondary outcome was 10-year overall survival. Waiting time to an age-matched graft offer under alternative donor-sharing radii (1500 nautical miles [NM], 1000 NM, or no limit vs 500 NM) were also estimated.
Results: Among 2020 adolescents receiving LTs (median age, 15.0 [IQR, 13.0-16.0] years; 1081 [53.5%] female), 612 (30.3%) received age-mismatched grafts (median donor age, 36.0 [IQR, 29.0-45.0] years) and 1408 (69.7%) received age-matched grafts (median donor age, 16.0 [IQR, 13.0-17.0] years). The age-mismatched group had a higher proportion of recipient candidates in the intensive care unit at transplant (287 [46.9%] vs 250 [17.8%]; P < .001). After propensity score matching (n = 526 per group), 10-year graft survival was 61.5% in the age-mismatched group and 74.2% in the age-matched group (P < .001), with consistent results across recipients’ pretransplant hospitalization status. A simulation estimated that expanding the adolescent allocation radius to 1000 NM would allow 90% of adolescent candidates to receive age-matched offers within 15 days, compared with 44 days under the current 500-NM limit.
Conclusions and relevance: In this case-control study of a US national cohort of adolescents receiving LT, donor-recipient age mismatch of 10 or more years was associated with inferior graft survival. Broader allocation of adolescent donors may improve access to age-matched grafts and long-term outcomes.
