Twenty Years of Liver Transplantation in Brazil

This paper summarizes the 20 years of liver transplantation in Brazil, in the context of the Western world scenario. More than 5000 liver transplantations have been performed in the country since September 1, 1985. The living-donor liver transplantation, one of the landmarks in liver transplantation, was first described by our team in 1989. Brazil is the seventh country in number of liver transplants in the Western world and the first in Latin America. Almost 1000 procedures were performed in 2004, 19% of them involving living donors.

Liver and intestine transplantation in the United States, 1995-2004

Three years of survival data are now available and the impact of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) allocation system is becoming clear. After a decline in new registrants to the waiting list in 2002, the number increased to 10 856 new patients in 2004. Since the implementation of MELD, the percentage of patients who have been on the list for 1-2 years has declined from 24% to 19%. There has been a shift upward in the percentage of patients with higher MELD scores on the waiting list. An increasing percentage of adult living donor liver recipients are over the age of 50 years; from 1% in 1997 to 51% in 2004. Parents donating to children (93% of living donors in 1995), represented only 14% in 2004. Long-term adjusted patient survival declined with increasing recipient age in adults following either DDLT or LDLT. Cirrhosis caused by chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading indication for liver transplantation and is associated with reduced long-term survival in recipients with HCV compared to those without HCV, 68% at 5 years compared to 76%. Although the intestine waiting list has more than doubled over the last decade, an increasing number of centers now perform intestinal transplantation with greater success.

Evolution of liver transplantation at the University of Heidelberg: interventions influencing patient referral

In Heidelberg, liver transplantation was first performed in 1987. In this article, we report our experience with an interdisciplinary approach (intervention) to improve the internal and external acceptance of the liver transplantation program. Formation of a transplant team and interdisciplinary standard setting of pre-, peri-, and postoperative protocols significantly stimulated this process. Involvement of the referring doctors in patient's treatment by transferring competencies enhanced patients referral to our center and increased the numbers of patients on the waiting list, an indispensable factor for organ allocation by Eurotransplant and transplantation. Involvement of patient organizations increased patient acceptance in the program.

Trends over a decade of pediatric liver transplantation in the United States

During the last 10 to 15 years, medical and surgical innovations have established pediatric liver transplantation as the optimal therapy for children suffering acute and chronic liver disease. We hypothesized that the profile of current pediatric liver transplant recipients would differ significantly from that of an earlier era. We collected and compared data regarding the characteristics of children undergoing liver transplantation alone in 2 eras separated by more than a decade from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database. Transplant recipients from March 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004, compared to those from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1992, tended to be more evenly distributed across age, race/ethnicity, and disease etiology. There was a major shift toward utilization of partial grafts from both deceased and living donors to achieve transplantation for the youngest children (<1 and 1-5 yr) in particular. However, in spite of these innovative transplant strategies and only a modest increase in demand for pediatric liver transplantation, wait list times for both pediatric candidates and recipients have still increased between eras. In conclusion, the sobering reality that mortality on the waiting list remains highest for the youngest pediatric liver candidates frames our challenge for the next decade.

Management of hepatitis C-infected liver transplant recipients at large North American centres: changes in recent years

Large (>or=45 transplants per year) North American liver transplant centres were surveyed regarding management of hepatitis C virus (HCV). A total of 25/41 (59%) and 28/48 (58%) of centres responded to the surveys in 1998 and 2003, respectively, with 17 centres participating in both surveys. HCV was the most common indication for transplantation. Use of protocol liver biopsies was higher in 2003 and 60% used them to monitor HCV disease. Fewer centres reported modifying primary immunosuppression (IMS) for HCV-positive (vs. non-HCV) patients in 2003 (26%) vs. 1998 (56%). IMS was most frequently tacrolimus-based, but mycophenolate mofetil use increased in 2003 (52% vs. 23% in 1998). In both years, approximately 40% treated allograft rejection differently in HCV-positive recipients, with less use of OKT3 in 2003. Combination anti-HCV therapy for 12 months or more was the treatment of choice and growth factor use was common (68%). HCV-positive recipients were considered candidates for retransplantation but HCV-specific criteria were used in decision-making. Practice of centres changed over time with an increase in HCV transplantation and use of protocol liver biopsies, and a trend towards lesser modification of IMS in HCV-positive recipients. We conclude that there is considerable variability in the management of HCV among transplant programs and over time.

National and regional analysis of exceptions to the Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease scoring system (2003-2004)

Since February 2002, the Pediatric End Stage Liver Disease (PELD) scoring system has been utilized as a means of prioritizing children for liver transplantation. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to assess utilization of PELD in 2003 and 2004; 682 liver transplants were performed in pediatric recipients where the PELD score was potentially the primary determinant of liver allocation. In the majority of circumstances (53%) the actual calculated PELD score was not utilized to determine liver allocation. An exception to the PELD score was utilized in 24% of cases. An additional 29% of the children were listed as urgent (status 1) without having acute liver failure. There was considerable regional variability in the inability to utilize actual PELD scores for liver allocation to children. PELD utilization was higher in regions of the country where pediatric donor organs were more available, presumably because children have some priority for organs from pediatric donors. There were 87 deaths in children awaiting liver transplantation. The mean PELD score in children without acute liver failure or metabolic liver disease (n = 33) near the time of death was 24.2, which has a purported 3-month risk of mortality of less than 10%. In our opinion the assigned 3-month risk of mortality associated with PELD scores is understated. Three-month mortality risk is used to inter-convert the adult and pediatric scoring systems. Therefore exceptions to the scoring system are required when children compete with adults for donor organs. In conclusion, urgent reassessment of the PELD scoring system is needed to avoid morbidity and mortality in children.

Bioartificial liver systems: current status and future perspective

Because the liver is a multifunctional and a vital organ for survival, the management of acute liver failure requires the support of a huge number of metabolic functions performed by the organ. Many early detoxification-based artificial liver techniques failed to treat the patients owing to the inadequate support of the many essential hepatic functions. For this reason, a bioartificial liver (BAL) comprising of viable hepatocytes on a mechanical support is believed to more likely provide these essential functions than a purely mechanical device. From 1990, nine clinical studies of various BAL systems have been reported, most of which utilize a hollow fiber technology, and a much larger number of various BAL systems have been suggested to show an enhanced performance. Safety issues such as immunological reactions, zoonosis and tumorgenicity have been successfully addressed for regulatory approval, but a recent report from a large-scale, randomized, and controlled phase III trial of a leading BAL system (HepatAssist) failed to meet our expectation of efficacy in terms of the overall survival rate. In this paper, we review the current BAL systems actively studied and discuss critical issues such as the hepatocyte bioreactor configuration and the hepatocyte source. On the basis of the insights gained from previously developed BAL systems and the rapid progress in stem cell technology, the short-term and long-term future perspectives of BAL systems are suggested.

[Current status and perspective of pediatric liver transplantation in Japan]

In Japan, the annual number of pediatric liver transplantation (LT) has been stable around 140 in the last few years. Almost all of them are from living donors. Three fourth are indicated for cholestatic liver diseases, mainly biliary atresia. One year patient survival rate after pediatric LT in Japan is 85 %. In comparison to other indications, patient survival of the infants with fulminant hepatic failure is quite poor. Weaning protocol of immunosuppression in pediatric LT in Japan is going in many institutions, and has succeeded to obtain some number of recipients with complete tolerance. More attenuated immunosuppresion and intimate monitoring for EB virus infection using the real-time PCR has been effective to decrease the incidence of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

Evolution of living donor liver transplantation in Egypt

OBJECTIVE

To date, cadaveric organ donation is illegal in Egypt. Therefore, Egypt recently introduced living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), aiming to save those who are suffering from end stage liver disease. Herein, we study the evolution of LDLT in Egypt.

METHODS

In Egypt, between August 2001 and February 2004, we approached all centers performing LDLT through personal communication and sent a questionnaire to each center asking for limited information regarding their LDLT experience.

RESULTS

We identified and approached 7 LDLT centers, which collectively performed a total of 130 LDLT procedures, however, 3 major centers performed most of the cases (91%). Overseas surgical teams, mainly from Japan, France, Korea, and Germany, either performed or supervised almost all procedures. Out of those 7 LDLT centers, 5 centers agreed to provide complete data on their patients including a total of 73 LDLT procedures. Out of those 73 recipients, 50 (68.5%) survived after a median follow-up period of 305 days (range 15-826 days). They reported single donor mortality. Hepatitis C virus cirrhosis, whether alone or mixed with schistosomiasis, was the main indication for LDLT.

CONCLUSION

Egypt recently introduced LDLT with reasonable outcomes; yet, it carries considerable risks to healthy donors, it lacks cadaveric back up, and is not feasible for all patients. We hope that the initial success in LDLT will not deter the efforts to legalize cadaveric organ donation in Egypt.

[Practical aspects and current perspectives of liver transplantation for the general practitioner]

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has become the method of choice for many forms of endstage liver disease and is generally associated with a good long-term outcome. Morbidity and mortality for this routine procedure have become acceptable provided the procedure is carried out with a correct and timely indication. It is important for the general practitioner to recognize the various early clinical signs of liver failure and portal hypertension in due course in order to reach a comprehensive planning of all necessary medical steps ahead. The most frequent indications for OLT such as chronic hepatitis C related cirrhosis, cholostatic forms of liver disease, limited liver tumours and metabolic disorders (haemochromatosis) are discussed in detail and major practical problems that a general practitioner might encounter in the follow-up of patients with OLT are highlighted in this review.

[Surgical techniques of liver transplantation]

Over the past several decades, liver transplantation has experienced remarkable advances in surgical techniques, including venovenous bypass, piggyback method without venovenous bypass, piggyback method with cavaplasty, living-related liver transplantation, splitting liver transplantation, cluster organ transplantation, and liver retransplantation. Based on his experience on 582 case of liver transplantation, the author reviews these techniques and discusses their advantages and disadvantages.

Liver transplant recipient selection: MELD vs. clinical judgment

Minimization of death while waiting for liver transplantation involves accurate prioritization according to clinical status and appropriate allocation of donor livers. Clinical judgment in the Liver Transplant Unit Victoria (LTUV) was compared with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in a retrospective analysis of the LTUV database over the 2-year period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2004. A total of 1,118 prioritization decisions occurred. Decisions were concordant in 758 (68%), comparing priorities assigned by clinical judgment with those assigned by MELD, P < 0.01. A total of 263 allocation decisions occurred. Decisions were concordant in 190 (72%) and 203 (77%) of the cases, comparing donor liver allocation with prioritization by MELD and clinical judgment, respectively. Of the 52 patients allocated a liver, only 23 would have been allocated on the basis of MELD while 29 had been prioritized on the waiting list in the week prior to transplantation. A total of 10 patients died on the waiting list in the 2-year period (annual adult waiting list mortality is 9.3%). Patients who subsequently died waiting were 3 times as likely to be prioritized by MELD as clinical judgment (29% vs. 9%, respectively). One half (3 of 6) of the patients who could have received a donor liver but who died waiting would have been allocated the organ on the basis of MELD. In conclusion, an allocation process based on MELD rather than clinical judgment would significantly alter organ allocation in Australia and may reduce waiting list mortality.