Veno-venous bypass versus none for liver transplantation

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Comparison of the modified piggyback with standard piggyback and conventional orthotopic liver transplantation techniques: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In conventional orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), the recipient's retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) is completely clamped and replaced with the donor IVC. The piggyback technique has been used to preserve venous return, either via an end-to-side or standard piggyback (SPB), or via a side-to-side or modified piggyback (MPB) anastomosis, using a venous cuff from the recipient hepatic veins with partially clamping and preserves the recipient's inferior vena cava. However, whether these piggyback techniques improve the efficacy of OLT is unclear. To address the low quality of the available evidence, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of conventional, MPB, and SPB techniques.

METHODS

Literature was searched in Medline and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until 2021 without any time restriction. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the intra- and postoperative outcomes of conventional OLT, MPB, and SPB techniques.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included, comprising 10,238 patients. MPB and SPB had significantly shorter operation times and fewer transfusions of red blood cell and fresh frozen plasma than conventional techniques. However, there were no differences between MPB and SPB in operation time and blood product transfusion. There were also no differences in primary non-function, retransplantation, portal vein thrombosis, acute kidney injury, renal dysfunction, venous outflow complications, length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, 90-day mortality rate, and graft survival between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

MBP and SBP techniques reduce the operation time and need for blood transfusion compared with conventional OLT, but postoperative outcomes are similar. This indicates that all techniques can be implemented based on the experience and policy of the transplant center.

Which cava anastomotic techniques are optimal regarding immediate and short-term outcomes after liver transplantation: A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

It has long been debated whether cava anastomosis should be performed with the piggyback technique or cava replacement, with or without veno-venous bypass (VVB), with or without temporary portocaval shunt (PCS) in the setting of liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To identify whether different cava anastomotic techniques and other maneuvers benefit the recipient regarding short-term outcomes and to provide international expert panel recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.

METHODS

A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021240979).

RESULTS

Of 3205 records screened, 307 publications underwent full-text assessment for eligibility and 47 were included in qualitative synthesis. Four studies were randomized control trials. Eighteen studies were comparative. The remaining 25 were single-center retrospective noncomparative studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on existing data and expert opinion, the panel cannot recommend one cava reconstruction technique over another, rather the surgical approach should be based on surgeon preference and center dependent, with special consideration toward patient circumstances (Quality of evidence: Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong). The panel recommends against routine use of vevo-venous bypass (Quality of evidence: Very Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong) and against the routine use of temporary porto-caval shunt (Quality of evidence: Very Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong).

Use of an intraoperative veno-venous bypass during liver transplantation: an observational, single center, cohort study

BACKGROUND

As previous studies demonstrated conflicting results, we investigated the hemodynamic and renal outcomes of the intra-operative use of a veno-venous bypass during liver transplantation.

METHODS

The intraoperative levels of mean artery pressure, cardiac index, inferior vena cava and renal perfusion pressures were compared in liver transplant patients receiving or not the bypass.

RESULTS

We enrolled 38 patients: 20 with the bypass and 18 without. No differences characterized the two groups regarding gender (p=0.95), age (p=0.32), BMI (p=0.09), liver disease indicating LT and preoperative serum creatinine levels. Patients with the bypass received more intraoperative fluids (crystalloids and colloids) but with no difference in terms of intraoperative blood products and vasopressors requirements (p= 0.33). After clamping of the inferior vena cava, patients with the bypass showed higher mean artery pressure. Simultaneously, pressure in the inferior vena cava below the clamp level sharply increased Vs baseline (p<0.0001) independently of the use of the bypass and remained high until clamp release. Consequently, renal perfusion pressure dropped abruptly (p <0.0001) after vena cava clamping and returned to baseline only upon clamp removal. Overall, 18 subjects developed post-operative acute kidney injury which was equally distributed between patients with (n=9) or without (n =8) the bypass.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the use of a veno-venous bypass fails to release the increased renal venous backflow from inferior vena cava clamping resulting in renal congestion with reduced renal perfusion pressure.

Left renal vein graft and in situ hepatic perfusion in hepatectomy for complete tumor invasion of hepatic veins: hemodynamic optimization and surgical technique

Purpose

Assessing hepatic vein reconstruction using a left renal vein graft and in situ hypothermic liver perfusion in an extended liver resection.

Methods

Patients included in this study were those with liver tumors undergoing curative surgery with resection and reconstruction of hepatic veins. Hepatic vein was reconstructed using a left renal vein graft. We describe the technical aspects of liver resection and vascular reconstruction, the key aspects of hemodynamic management, and the use of in situ hypothermic liver preservations during liver transection (prior to and during vascular clamping).

Results

The right hepatic vein was reconstructed with a median left renal venal graft length of 4.5 cm (IQR, 3.1–5.2). Creatinine levels remained within normal limits in the immediate postoperative phase and during follow-up. Median blood loss was 500 ml (IQR, 300–1500) and in situ perfusion with cold ischemia was 67 min (IQR, 60.5–77.5). The grafts remained patent during the follow-up with no signs of thrombosis. No major postoperative complications were observed.

Conclusion

Left renal vein graft for the reconstruction of a hepatic vein and in situ hypothermic liver perfusion are feasible during extended liver resection.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02451-6.

Vitamin D levels in liver transplantation recipients and early postoperative outcomes: Prospective observational DLiverX study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In critically ill patients with liver disease, vitamin D deficiency is associated with higher disease severity, increased frequency of infections, and worse outcomes. This study sought to describe the trend of vitamin D in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) recipients and its association with outcomes.

METHODS

Prospective observational study of 67 consecutive OLT recipients enrolled between September, 2016 and August, 2017 at IRCCS-ISMETT, Palermo (Italy). Trend of vitamin D levels and potential factors influencing it levels were evaluated through a generalized linear mixed regression model.

RESULTS

Sixty-four (95.5%) recipients were vitamin D deficient (<20 ng/ml), with a median value of 8.8 ng/ml [6.2-12.9], and forty-seven of these (70.1%) showed severe deficiency (<12 ng/ml) at baseline, 7.9 ng/ml [5.4-8.9]. The baseline vitamin D showed an inverse correlation with liver disease severity: Child-Pugh, MELD score, bilirubin, INR, and organ failure (p < 0.01) at baseline. Vitamin D increased on postoperative day (POD) 28 compared with POD1: +4.5 ng/ml, C.I. 95% 3.6-5.3 ng/ml, p < 0.01. Lower baseline vitamin D, donor age, transfusion of fresh frozen plasma (negative impact, all p < 0.05), and intra-operative bypass (positive impact at POD 28, p < 0.01) were associated with variation of vitamin D levels after transplantation. Incomplete graft recovery was associated with lower vitamin D on POD28: 8.2 ± 4.4 versus 13.8 ± 9.4 ng/ml, p < 0.01; the odds ratio (OR) was 0.84; CI 95% 0.73-0.97, p = 0.014. The OR for infections within POD 28 was inversely associated with baseline vitamin D: 0.87; CI 95% 0.79-0.98, p = 0.02, and with vitamin D level at baseline <12 ng/ml: OR 6.44; CI 95% 1.66-24.94; p < 0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative Vitamin D is correlated with disease severity, and was highly associated with invasive infection in the first 28 PODs. After OLT, the value on POD 28 had a strong association with graft function.

Technical Aspects of Orthotopic Liver Transplantation-a Survey-Based Study Within the Eurotransplant, Swisstransplant, Scandiatransplant, and British Transplantation Society Networks

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has emerged as the mainstay of treatment for end-stage liver disease. However, technical aspects of OLT are still subject of ongoing debate and are widely based on personal experience and local institutional protocols.

METHODS

An international online survey was sent out to all liver transplant centers (n = 52) within the Eurotransplant, Swisstransplant, Scandiatransplant, and British Transplant Society networks. The survey sought information on center-specific OLT caseload, vascular and biliary reconstruction, graft reperfusion, intraoperative control of hemodynamics, and drain policies.

RESULTS

Forty-two centers gave a valid response (81%). Out of these, 50% reported piggy-back and 40.5% total caval replacement as their standard technique. While 48% of all centers generally do not apply veno-venous bypass (vvBP) or temporary portocaval shunt (PCS) during OLT, vvBP/PCS are routinely used in six centers (14%). Portal vein first reperfusion is used in 64%, followed by simultaneous (17%), and retrograde reperfusion (12%). End-to-end duct-to-duct anastomosis without biliary drain (67%) is the most frequently performed method of biliary reconstruction. No significant associations were found between the center caseload and the surgical approach used. The predominant part of the centers (88%) stated that techniques of OLT are not evidence-based and 98% would participate in multicenter clinical trials on these topics.

CONCLUSION

Technical aspects of OLT vary widely among European centers. The extent to which center-specific variation of techniques affect transplant outcomes in Europe should be elucidated further in prospective multicenter trials.

Liver Transplantation Without Venovenous Bypass: Does Surgical Approach Matter?

Background

The use of venovenous bypass in liver transplantation has declined over time. Few studies have examined the impact of surgical approach in cases performed exclusively without venovenous bypass. We hypothesized that advances in liver transplant anesthesia and perioperative care have minimized the importance of surgical approach in the modern era.

Methods

Deceased donor liver transplants at the University of Toronto from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed, all performed without venovenous bypass. First, an unadjusted analysis was performed comparing perioperative outcomes and graft/patient survival for 3 different liver transplant techniques (caval interposition, piggyback, side-to-side cavo-cavostomy). Second, a propensity-matched analysis was performed comparing caval interposition to caval-preserving techniques.

Results

One thousand two hundred thirty-three liver transplants were included in the study. On unadjusted analysis, blood loss, transfusion requirement, postoperative complications, and graft/patient survival were equivalent for the 3 different techniques. To account for possible confounding patient variables, propensity matching was performed. Analysis of the propensity-matched cohorts also demonstrated similar outcomes for caval interposition versus caval-preserving approaches.

Conclusions

In the modern era at centers with a multidisciplinary team, the importance of specific liver transplant technique is minimized. Full or partial cross-clamping of the inferior vena cava is feasible without the use of venovenous bypass.

Anesthesia for Liver Transplantation

The provision of anesthesia for a liver transplant program requires a dedicated team of anesthesiologists. Liver transplant anesthesiologists must have an understanding of liver physiology and anatomy; the spectrum of clinical disease associated with liver dysfunction; the impact of warm and cold ischemia times, surgical techniques in liver transplantation, and the impact of ischemia-reperfusion syndrome; and optimal practices to protect the liver. The team must provide a 24-hour service, be actively involved in the selection committee process, and stay current with advances in the subspecialty.

Vascular Reconstruction in Hepatic Malignancy

With surgery for hepatic malignancy, there are poor options for chemotherapy; many patients are deemed unresectable because of vascular involvement or location of tumors. Over the past few decades, advances in surgical technique have allowed resection of these tumors with vascular reconstruction to achieve negative margins and improve chances for survival. This article reviews those reconstruction techniques and outcomes in detail, including in situ perfusion and ex vivo liver surgery, and provides a discussion of implications and operative planning for patients with hepatic malignancy in order to provide surgeons with better understanding of these complicated operations.

Effect of utilization of veno-venous bypass vs. cardiopulmonary bypass on complications for high level inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy and concomitant radical nephrectomy

Purpose:

To determine if patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with levels III and IV tumor thrombi are receive any reduction in complication rate utilizing veno-venous bypass (VVB) over cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for high level (III/IV) inferior vena cava (IVC) tumor thrombectomy and concomitant radical nephrectomy.

Materials and Methods:

From May 1990 to August 2011, we reviewed 21 patients that had been treated for RCC with radical nephrectomy and concomitant IVC thrombectomy employing either CPB (n =16) or VVB (n=5). We retrospectively reviewed our study population for complication rates and perioperative characteristics.

Results:

Our results are reported using the validated Dindo-Clavien Classification system comparing the VVB and CPB cohorts. No significant difference was noted in minor complication rate (60.0% versus 68.7%, P=1.0), major complication rate (40.0% versus 31.3%, P=1.0), or overall complication rate (60.0% versus 62.5%, P=1.0) comparing VVB versus CPB. We also demonstrated a trend towards decreased time on bypass (P=0.09) in the VVB cohort.

Conclusion:

The use of VVB over CPB provides no decrease in minor, major, or overall complication rate. The use of VVB however, can be employed on an individualized basis with final decision on vascular bypass selection left to the discretion of the surgeon based on specifics of the individual case.

Reducing transfusion requirements in liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) was historically associated with massive blood loss and transfusion. Over the past two decades transfusion requirements have reduced dramatically and increasingly transfusion-free transplantation is a reality. Both bleeding and transfusion are associated with adverse outcomes in LT. Minimising bleeding and reducing unnecessary transfusions are therefore key goals in the perioperative period. As the understanding of the causes of bleeding has evolved so too have techniques to minimize or reduce the impact of blood loss. Surgical “piggyback” techniques, anaesthetic low central venous pressure and haemodilution strategies and the use of autologous cell salvage, point of care monitoring and targeted correction of coagulopathy, particularly through use of factor concentrates, have all contributed to declining reliance on allogenic blood products. Pre-emptive management of preoperative anaemia and adoption of more restrictive transfusion thresholds is increasingly common as patient blood management (PBM) gains momentum. Despite progress, increasing use of marginal grafts and transplantation of sicker recipients will continue to present new challenges in bleeding and transfusion management. Variation in practice across different centres and within the literature demonstrates the current lack of clear transfusion guidance. In this article we summarise the causes and predictors of bleeding and present the evidence for a variety of PBM strategies in LT.

Bypass during Liver Transplantation: Anachronism or Revival? Liver Transplantation Using a Combined Venovenous/Portal Venous Bypass-Experiences with 163 Liver Transplants in a Newly Established Liver Transplantation Program

Introduction. The venovenous/portal venous (VVP) bypass technique has generally become obsolete in liver transplantation (LT) today. We evaluated our experience with 163 consecutive LTs that used a VVP bypass. Patients and Methods. The liver transplant program was started in our center in 2010. LTs were performed using an extracorporal bypass device. Results. Mean operative time was 269 minutes and warm ischemic time 43 minutes. The median number of transfusion of packed cells and plasma was 7 and 14. There was no intraoperative death, and the 30-day mortality was 3%. Severe bypass-induced complications did not occur. Discussion. The introduction of a new LT program requires maximum safety measures for all of the parties involved. Both surgical and anaesthesiological management (reperfusion) can be controlled very reliably using a VVP bypass device. Particularly when using marginal grafts, this approach helps to minimise both surgical and anaesthesiological complications in terms of less volume overload, less use of vasopressive drugs, less myocardial injury, and better peripheral blood circulation. Conclusion. Based on our experiences while establishing a new liver transplantation program, we advocate the reappraisal of the extracorporeal VVP bypass.

Overview of the indications and contraindications for liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment option for patients with irrevocable acute or chronic liver failure. In the last four decades, liver transplantation has developed from an experimental approach with a very high mortality to an almost routine procedure with good short- and long-term survival rates. Here, we present an up-to-date overview of the indications and contraindications for liver transplantation. It is shown how the evaluation of a candidate and finally listing for transplantation has to be performed in a multidisciplinary setting. Meticulous listing, timing, and organ allocation are the crucial factors to achieve an optimal outcome for the individual patient on the one hand, and reasonably using the limited deceased donor pool on the other hand. Living-donor liver transplantation is demanding but necessarily increasing. Because patients after liver transplantation need lifelong aftercare, it is important for primary care clinicians to understand the basic medical problems and risks.

Advances in transplantation 1940-2014

The history of medicine is that what was inconceivable yesterday and barely achievable today often becomes routine tomorrow. Liver transplantation began with almost no resources at the same time as the tentative first steps were taken to land a man on the moon. Because human lives would be at stake, both objectives had a sacramental element from the outset: a solemnly binding commitment to perfection. The gift of an organ is really a gift of life, and something as valuable as a life-saving organ is more important to a suffering patient than wealth or power. The concept of a team approach to the care of the transplant patient is an important factor in the development of a successful program. This has resulted in recipient survival rates reaching 90% at one year.

Methods to decrease blood loss and transfusion requirements for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Excessive blood loss and increased blood transfusion requirements may have significant impact on the short-term and long-term outcomes after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the potential benefits and harms of different methods of decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements during liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and metaRegister of Controlled Trials until September 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials that were performed to compare various methods of decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements during liver transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available data analysis. We also conducted network meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials involving 1913 patients. The sample size in the trials varied from 8 to 209 participants. The interventions included pharmacological interventions (aprotinin, tranexamic acid, epsilon amino caproic acid, antithrombin 3, recombinant factor (rFvIIa), oestrogen, prostaglandin, epinephrine), blood substitutes (blood components rather than whole blood, hydroxy-ethyl starch, thromboelastography), and cardiovascular interventions (low central venous pressure). All the trials were of high risk of bias. Primary outcomes were reported in at least two trials for the following comparisons: aprotinin versus control, tranexamic acid versus control, recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) versus control, and tranexamic acid versus aprotinin. There were no significant differences in the 60-day mortality (3 trials; 6/161 (3.7%) in the aprotinin group versus 8/119 (6.7%) in the control group; RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.45), primary graft non-function (2 trials; 0/128 (0.0%) in the aprotinin group versus 4/89 (4.5%) in the control group; RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.25), retransplantation (3 trials; 2/256 (0.8%) in the aprotinin group versus 12/178 (6.7%) in the control group; RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79), or thromboembolic episodes (3 trials; 4/161 (2.5%) in the aprotinin group versus 5/119 (4.2%) in the control group; RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84) between the aprotinin and control groups. There were no significant differences in the 60-day mortality (3 trials; 4/83 (4.8%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 5/56 (8.9%) in the control group; RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.76), retransplantation (2 trials; 3/41 (7.3%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 3/36 (8.3%) in the control group; RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.18 to 3.48), or thromboembolic episodes (5 trials; 5/103 (4.9%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 1/76 (1.3%) in the control group; RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.38 to 12.64) between the tranexamic acid and control groups. There were no significant differences in the 60-day mortality (3 trials; 8/195 (4.1%) in the recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) group versus 2/91 (2.2%) in the control group; RR 1.51; 95% CI 0.33 to 6.95), thromboembolic episodes (2 trials; 24/185 (13.0%) in the rFVIIa group versus 8/81 (9.9%) in the control group; RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.91), or serious adverse events (2 trials; 90/185 (48.6%) in the rFVIIa group versus 30/81 (37.0%) in the control group; RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.78) between the rFVIIa and control groups. There were no significant differences in the 60-day mortality (2 trials; 6/91 (6.6%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 1/87 (1.1%) in the aprotinin group; RR 4.12; 95% CI 0.71 to 23.76) or thromboembolic episodes (2 trials; 4/91 (4.4%) in the tranexamic acid group versus 2/87 (2.3%) in the aprotinin group; RR 1.97; 95% CI 0.37 to 10.37) between the tranexamic acid and aprotinin groups. The remaining outcomes in the above comparisons and the remaining comparisons included only only trial under the primary outcome or the outcome was not reported at all in the trials. There were no significant differences in the mortality, primary graft non-function, graft failure, retransplantation, thromboembolic episodes, or serious adverse events in any of these comparisons. However, the confidence intervals were wide, and it is not possible to reach any conclusion on the safety of the interventions. None of the trials reported the quality of life in patients.Secondary outcomes were reported in at least two trials for the following comparisons - aprotinin versus control, tranexamic acid versus control, rFVIIa versus control, thromboelastography versus control, and tranexamic acid versus aprotinin. There was significantly lower allogeneic blood transfusion requirements in the aprotinin group than the control group (8 trials; 185 patients in aprotinin group and 190 patients in control group; SMD -0.61; 95% CI -0.82 to -0.40). There were no significant differences in the allogeneic blood transfusion requirements between the tranexamic acid and control groups (4 trials; 93 patients in tranexamic acid group and 66 patients in control group; SMD -0.27; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.06); rFVIIa and control groups (2 trials; 141 patients in rFVIIa group and 80 patients in control group; SMD -0.05; 95% CI -0.32 to 0.23); thromboelastography and control groups (2 trials; 31 patients in thromboelastography group and 31 patients in control group; SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.69 to 0.24); or between the tranexamic acid and aprotinin groups (3 trials; 101 patients in tranexamic acid group and 97 patients in aprotinin group; SMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.19). The remaining outcomes in the above comparisons and the remaining comparisons included only only trial under the primary outcome or the outcome was not reported at all in the trials. There were no significant differences in the blood loss, transfusion requirements, hospital stay, or intensive care unit stay in most of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aprotinin, recombinant factor VIIa, and thromboelastography groups may potentially reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements. However, risks of systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance) hamper the confidence in this conclusion. We need further well-designed randomised trials with low risk of systematic error and low risk of random errors before these interventions can be supported or refuted.