Ischemic preconditioning in deceased donor liver transplantation: a prospective randomized clinical trial of safety and efficacy

PREVENTION OF PATHOLOGICAL EFFECT OF ISCHEMIA-REPERFUSION IN LIVER RESECTION BY SEVOFLURANE PRECONDITIONING

BACKGROUND

The intermittent Pringle maneuver remains the major technique for controlling hemorrhage during liver surgery. Nevertheless, this procedure involves a risk of triggering a cascade of pathological changes resulting in the ischemia-reperfusion injury (I/R) effect. The pharmacological prevention of this I/R injury represents a promising approach. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of pharmacological preconditioning with sevoflurane and propofol-based intravenous anesthesia on the postoperative function of the liver as the primary end-point.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study includes the analysis of the data of 73 patients who underwent liver surgery. In the study group (n = 41), preconditioning with sevoflurane inhalation was provided 30 minutes prior to liver resection. In the control group (n = 32), sevoflurane preconditioning was not provided. The primary endpoints were blood lactate concentration shortly after the surgery and one day later; alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) activities on postoperative Days 1, 3, and 5 as markers of hepatocyte damage.

RESULTS

On postoperative Day 1, in patients of the study group, lactate decreased to preoperative levels, while in the control group, lactate content increased as compared to both preoperative levels and the levels immediately after liver resection. A significant difference in AST activity levels between the groups was registered on Day 5, although this difference was not clinically relevant. The decrease in the prothrombin index in the study group on Day 3 was superior to that in the control group. The multiple regression analysis demonstrated a moderate positive association between the number of resected liver segments and the markers of the functional state of the liver in the study group while in the control group, such association was not significant.

CONCLUSION

The protective effect of sevoflurane on the postoperative function of the liver is manifested by the lower level of blood lactate and the stable level of transaminase activity.

Ischemic Preconditioning for Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

In recent decades, liver transplantation (LTx) has increased the survival and quality of life of patients with end-stage organ failure. Unfortunately, LTx is limited due to the shortage of donors. A lot of effort is put into finding new ways to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) in liver grafts to increase the number of suitable organs procured from expanded-criteria donors (ECD). The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature reporting LTx outcomes when using ischemic preconditioning (IPC) or remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) to reduce IRI in liver grafts.

Methods

A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. The following combination was used: "Liver" OR "Liver Transplantation" AND "Ischemic preconditioning" OR "occlusion" OR "clamping" OR "Pringle." The following outcome data were retrieved: the rates of graft primary nonfunction (PNF), retransplantation, graft loss, and mortality; stay in hospital and the intensive care unit; and postoperative serum liver damage parameters.

Results

The initial search retrieved 4,522 potentially relevant studies. After evaluating 17 full-text articles, a total of 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (7 IPC and 2 RIPC studies) in the qualitative synthesis; the meta-analysis was only performed on the data from the IPC studies. RIPC studies had considerable methodological differences. The meta-analysis revealed the beneficial effect of IPC when comparing postoperative aspartate aminotransferase (AST) corresponding to a statistically lower mortality rate in the IPC group (odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.98; p = 0.04).

Conclusion

IPC lowers postoperative AST levels and reduces the mortality rate; however, data on the benefits of RIPC are lacking.

Direct, remote and combined ischemic conditioning in liver surgery

Liver ischemia-reperfusion injury is a major cause of postoperative liver dysfunction, morbidity and mortality following liver resection and transplantation. Ischemic conditioning has been shown to ameliorate ischemia-reperfusion injury in small animal models. It can be applied directly or remotely when cycles of ischemia and reperfusion are applied to a distant site or organ. Considering timing of the procedure, different protocols are available. Ischemic preconditioning refers to that performed before the duration of ischemia of the target organ. Ischemic perconditioning is performed over the duration of ischemia of the target organ. Ischemic postconditioning applies brief episodes of ischemia at the onset of reperfusion following a prolonged ischemia. Animal studies pointed towards suppressing cytokine release, enhancing the production of hepatoprotective adenosine and reducing liver apoptotic response as the potential mechanisms responsible for the protective effect of direct tissue conditioning. Interactions between neural, humoral and systemic pathways all lead to the protective effect of remote ischemic preconditioning. Despite promising animal studies, none of the aforementioned protocols proved to be clinically effective in liver surgery with the exception of morbidity reduction in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver resection. Further human clinical trials with application of novel conditioning protocols and combination of methods are warranted before implementation of ischemic conditioning in day-to-day clinical practice.

Examining consent for interventional research in potential deceased organ donors: a narrative review

In the last decade, research in transplant medicine has focused on developing interventions in the management of the deceased organ donor to improve the quality and quantity of transplantable organs. Despite the promise of interventional donor research, there remain debates about the ethics of this research, specifically regarding gaining research consent. Here, we examine the concerns and ambiguities around consent for interventional donor research, which incorporate questions about who should consent for interventional donor research and what people are being asked to consent for. We highlight the US and UK policy responses to these concerns and argue that, whereas guidance in this area has done much to clarify these ambiguities, there is little consideration of the nature, practicalities and context around consent in this area, particularly regarding organ donors and their families. We review wider studies of consent in critical care research and social science studies of consent in medical research, to gain a broader view of consent in this area as a relational and contextual process. We contend a lack of consideration has been given to: what it might mean to consent to interventional donor research; how families, patients and health professionals might experience providing and seeking this consent; who is best placed to have these discussions; and the socio-institutional contexts affecting these processes. Further, empirical research is required to establish an ethical and sensitive model for consent in interventional donor research, ensuring the principles enshrined in research ethics are met and public trust in organ donation is maintained.

Hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury in liver transplant setting: mechanisms and protective strategies

Hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury is a major cause of liver transplant failure, and is of increasing significance due to increased use of expanded criteria livers for transplantation. This review summarizes the mechanisms and protective strategies for hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury in the context of liver transplantation. Pharmacological therapies, the use of pre-and post-conditioning and machine perfusion are discussed as protective strategies. The use of machine perfusion offers significant potential in the reconditioning of liver grafts and the prevention of hepatic ischemia-reperfusion injury, and is an exciting and active area of research, which needs more study clinically.

Impact of combined ischemic preconditioning and remote ischemic perconditioning on ischemia-reperfusion injury after liver transplantation

Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) and remote ischemic perconditioning (RIPer) confer protective effects against liver ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI), but data about RIPer applying in liver transplantation is lacking. The study aimed to evaluate whether the combination of IPC and RIPer provides reinforced protective effects. C57BL/6 mice (160 pairs) were allocated into four groups: control, subjected to liver transplantation only; IPC, donor hilar was clamped for 10 min followed by 15 min of reperfusion; RIPer, three cycles of occlusion (5 min) and opening (5 min) of femoral vascular bundle were performed before reperfusion; IPC + RIPer, donors and recipients were subjected to IPC and RIPer respectively. Liver tissues were obtained for histological evaluation, TUNEL staining, malondialdehyde assays, GSH-Px assays, and NF-κB p65 protein and Bcl-2/Bax mRNA analyses. Blood samples were used to evaluate ALT, AST, TNF-α, NOx levels and flow cytometry. We found that protective efficacy of RIPer is less than IPC in terms of ALT, TNF-α, GSH-Px and NOx at 2 h postoperation, but almost equivalent at 24 h and 72 h postoperation. Except for Suzuki scores, ALT, Bcl-2/Bax mRNA ratio, other indices showed that combined treatment brought enhanced attenuation in IRI, compared with single treatment, through additive effects on antioxidation, anti-apoptosis, modulation of microcirculation disturbance, and inhibition of innate immune response. This study suggested a combined strategy that could enhance protection against IRI in clinical liver transplantation, otherwise, provided a hint that RIPer's mechanism might be partly or totally different from IPC in humoral pathway.

Impact of Donor Pre-Procurement Cardiac Arrest (PPCA) on Clinical Outcomes in Liver Transplantation

Background

Transplantation of liver grafts from deceased donors who experienced cardiac arrest prior to liver procurement is now common. This single-center study analyzed the impact of pre-donation arrest time on clinical outcomes in liver transplantation.

Material/Methods

Records of all orthotopic liver transplants performed at a single center over a 15-year period were reviewed. Donor records were reviewed and total arrest time was calculated as cumulative minutes. Post-transplant liver graft function was assessed using laboratory values. Graft survival was assessed with Cox regression analysis.

Results

Records for 1830 deceased donor transplants were reviewed, and 521 donors experienced pre-procurement cardiac arrest (28%). Median arrest time was 21 min (mean 25 min, range 1–120 min). After transplant, the peak alanine aminotransferase and bilirubin levels for liver grafts from donors with arrest were lower compared to those for donors without arrest (p<0.001). Early allograft dysfunction occurred in 25% (arrest) and 28% (no arrest) of patients (p=0.22). There were no differences in risk of early graft loss (3% vs. 3%, p=0.84), length of hospital stay (10 vs. 10 days, p=0.76), and 1-year graft survival (89% vs. 89%, p=0.94). Cox regression analysis comparing 4 groups (no arrest, <20 min, 20–40 min, and >40 min arrest) demonstrated no statistically significant difference in survival at 10 years. Subgroup analysis of 93 donation after cardiac death grafts showed no significant difference for these same outcomes.

Conclusions

These results support the use of select deceased liver donors who experience pre-donation cardiac arrest. Pre-donation arrest may be associated with less early allograft dysfunction, but had no impact on long-term clinical outcomes. The results for donation after cardiac death donors were similar.

Systematic review on the treatment of deceased organ donors

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no consensus on which treatments should be a part of standard deceased-donor management to improve graft quality and transplantation outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of treatments of the deceased, solid-organ donor on graft function and survival after transplantation.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that compared deceased-donor treatment versus placebo or no treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were selected for this systematic review. Eleven studies were included for meta-analyses on three different treatment strategies. The meta-analysis on methylprednisolone treatment in liver donors (two studies, 183 participants) showed no effect of the treatment on rates of acute rejection. The meta-analysis on antidiuretic hormone treatment in kidney donors (two studies, 222 participants) indicates no benefit in the prevention of delayed graft function. The remaining meta-analyses (seven studies, 334 participants) compared the effects of 10 min of ischaemic preconditioning on outcomes after liver transplantation and showed that ischaemic preconditioning improved short-term liver function, but not long-term transplant outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that any particular drug treatment or any intervention in the deceased donor improves long-term graft or patient survival after transplantation.

Remote ischaemic preconditioning in orthotopic liver transplantation (RIPCOLT trial): a pilot randomized controlled feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Ischaemia Reperfusion (IR) injury is a major cause of morbidity, mortality and graft loss following Orthotopic Liver Transplantation (OLT). Utilising marginal grafts, which are more susceptible to IR injury, makes this a key research goal. Remote Ischaemic Preconditioning (RIPC) has been shown to ameliorate hepatic IR injury in experimental models. Whether RIPC can reduce IR injury in human liver transplant recipients is unknown.

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing liver transplantation were randomized to RIPC or a sham. RIPC was induced through three 5 min cycles of alternate ischaemia and reperfusion of the left leg prior to surgery. Data on clinical outcomes was collected prospectively. Per-operative cytokine levels were measured.

RESULTS

Fourty five of 51 patients approached (88%) were willing to enroll in the study. Five patients were excluded and 40 randomized, of which 20 underwent RIPC which was successfully completed in all patients. There were no complications following RIPC. Median day 3 AST levels were slightly higher in the RIPC group (221 IU vs 149 IU, p = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

RIPC is acceptable and safe in liver transplant recipients. This study has not demonstrated evidence of a reduction in short-term measures of IR injury. Longer follow up will be required and consideration of an altered protocol.

An Evaluation of Ischaemic Preconditioning as a Method of Reducing Ischaemia Reperfusion Injury in Liver Surgery and Transplantation

Liver Ischaemia Reperfusion (IR) injury is a major cause of post-operative liver dysfunction, morbidity and mortality following liver resection surgery and transplantation. There are no proven therapies for IR injury in clinical practice and new approaches are required. Ischaemic Preconditioning (IPC) can be applied in both a direct and remote fashion and has been shown to ameliorate IR injury in small animal models. Its translation into clinical practice has been difficult, primarily by a lack of knowledge regarding the dominant protective mechanisms that it employs. A review of all current studies would suggest that IPC/RIPC relies on creating a small tissue injury resulting in the release of adenosine and l-arginine which act through the Adenosine receptors and the haem-oxygenase and endothelial nitric oxide synthase systems to reduce hepatocyte necrosis and improve the hepatic microcirculation post reperfusion. The next key step is to determine how long the stimulus requires to precondition humans to allow sufficient injury to occur to release the potential mediators. This would open the door to a new therapeutic chapter in this field.

Emerging graft protective strategies in clinical liver transplantation

There have been remarkable efforts to characterize the key responsible pathophysiologic mechanisms, as well as to ameliorate the organ preservation and ischemia reperfusion injury with the ultimate goal of expanding the donor pool and further improvement of the outcomes of liver transplantation. Attempts to translate the experimental results from bench to bedside have yielded no valid protective concepts in the field of clinical liver transplantation yet. Nonetheless, there has been a considerable amount of ongoing clinical research to develop clinically relevant graft protective strategies. Areas covered: This review focuses on the most recent evidence based findings and ongoing clinical trials that might lead to emerging graft protective strategies in the field of clinical liver transplantation. New evidence-based findings in the donor preconditioning, organ preservation, and perioperative pharmacologic graft protection strategies in the recipient are reviewed. Expert commentary: Few strategies have been shown to exert some graft protective effects against ischemia reperfusion injury in recent clinical trials in liver transplantation. Among others, 'dynamic graft preservation' techniques have been emerging as more promising graft optimization strategies.

Effect of Remote Ischaemic Preconditioning on Liver Injury in Patients Undergoing Major Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastasis: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial

Background

Liver resection produces excellent long-term survival for patients with colorectal liver metastases but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality from ischaemia reperfusion injury (IRI). Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) can reduce the effect of IRI. This pilot randomised controlled trial evaluated RIPC in patients undergoing major hepatectomy at the Royal Free Hospital, London.

Methods

Sixteen patients were randomised to RIPC or sham control. RIPC was induced through three 10-min cycles of alternate ischaemia and reperfusion to the leg. At baseline and immediately post-resection, transaminases and indocyanine green (ICG) clearance were measured.

Findings

The RIPC group had lower ALT and AST levels immediately post-resection (ALT: 43% lower 497 ± 165 vs 889 ± 170 IU/L; p = 0.019 AST: 54% lower 408 ± 166 vs 836 ± 167 IU/L; p = 0.001) and at 24 h (ALT: 41% lower 412 ± 144 vs 698 ± 137 IU/L; p = 0.026 AST: 50% lower 316 ± 116 vs 668 ± 115 IU/L; p = 0.02). ICG clearance was reduced in controls versus RIPC immediately after resection (ICG-PDR: 11.1 ± 1.1 vs 16.5 ± 1.4%/min; p = 0.035).

Conclusions

This pilot study shows that RIPC has potential to reduce liver injury following hepatectomy justifying a prospective RCT powered to demonstrate clinical benefits.

Liver graft preconditioning, preservation and reconditioning

Liver transplantation is the successful treatment of end-stage liver disease; however, the ischaemia-reperfusion injury still jeopardizes early and long-term post-transplant outcomes. In fact, ischaemia-reperfusion is associated with increased morbidity and graft dysfunction, especially when suboptimal donors are utilized. Strategies to reduce the severity of ischaemia-reperfusion can be applied at different steps of the transplantation process: organ procurement, preservation phase or before revascularization. During the donor procedure, preconditioning consists of pre-treating the graft prior to a sustained ischaemia either by a transient period of ischaemia-reperfusion or administration of anti-ischaemic medication, although a multi-pharmacological approach seems more promising. Different preservation solutions were developed to maintain graft viability during static cold storage, achieving substantial results in terms of liver function and survival in good quality organs but not in suboptimal ones. Indeed, preservation solutions do not prevent dysfunction of poor quality organs and are burdened with inadequate preservation of the biliary epithelium. Advantages derived from either hypo- or normothermic machine perfusion are currently investigated in experimental and clinical settings, suggesting a reconditioning effect possibly improving hepatocyte and biliary preservation and resuscitating graft function prior to transplantation. In this review, we highlight acquired knowledge and recent advances in liver graft preconditioning, preservation and reconditioning.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of donor ischaemic preconditioning in liver transplantation

Ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) is a strategy to reduce ischaemia-reperfusion (IR) injury. Its benefit in human liver transplantation is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyse the current evidence for donor IPC in liver transplantation. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving IPC of liver transplant donors. Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up until January 2015. Data retrieved included the primary outcomes of 1-year mortality, incidence of primary graft non-function (PGNF) and retransplantation. Secondary outcomes included aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels on day 3 post-op. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous data and mean weighted ratios for continuous data. Ten studies included 593 patients (286 IPC; 307 control). IPC was associated with a reduction in mortality at 1 year (6% vs. 11%) although this was not statistically significant (OR 0.54, 95% C.I. 0.28-1.04, P = 0.06). The IPC group had a significantly lower day 3 AST level (WMD -66.41iU, P = 0.04). This meta-analysis demonstrates that IPC reduces liver injury following transplantation and produces a large reduction in 1-year mortality which was not statistically significant. Confirmation of clinical benefit from IPC requires an adequately powered prospective RCT.

Current Antioxidant Treatments in Organ Transplantation

Oxidative stress is one of the key mechanisms affecting the outcome throughout the course of organ transplantation. It is widely believed that the redox balance is dysregulated during ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) and causes subsequent oxidative injury, resulting from the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Moreover, in order to alleviate organ shortage, increasing number of grafts is retrieved from fatty, older, and even non-heart-beating donors that are particularly vulnerable to the accumulation of ROS. To improve the viability of grafts and reduce the risk of posttransplant dysfunction, a large number of studies have been done focusing on the antioxidant treatments for the purpose of maintaining the redox balance and thereby protecting the grafts. This review provides an overview of these emerging antioxidant treatments, targeting donor, graft preservation, and recipient as well.

Protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial of recipient remote ischaemic preconditioning in orthotopic liver transplantation (RIPCOLT trial)

Abstract

Ischaemic reperfusion (IR) injury is a major cause of graft loss, morbidity and mortality following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Demand for liver transplantation has resulted in increasing use of marginal grafts that are more prone to IR injury. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces IR injury in experimental models, but recipient RIPC has not been evaluated clinically.

Methods

A single-centre double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) is planned to test the hypothesis that recipient RIPC will reduce IR injury. RIPC will be performed following recipient anaesthetic induction but prior to skin incision. The protocol involves 3 cycles of 5 min of lower limb occlusion with a pneumatic tourniquet inflated to 200 mmHg alternating with 5 min of reperfusion. In the control group, the sham will involve the cuff being placed on the thigh but without being inflated.

The primary endpoint is ability to recruit patients to the trial and safety of RIPC. The key secondary endpoint is a reduction in serum aspartate transferase levels on the third post-operative day.

Discussion

RIPC is a promising strategy to reduce IR injury in liver transplant recipients as there is a clear experimental basis, and the intervention is both inexpensive and easy to perform. This is the first trial to investigate RIPC in liver transplant recipients.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00796588

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13737-016-0033-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hyperbaric oxygen preconditioning: a reliable option for neuroprotection

Brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide and clinically there is no effective therapy for neuroprotection. Hyperbaric oxygen preconditioning (HBO-PC) has been experimentally demonstrated to be neuroprotective in several models and has shown efficiency in patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Compared with other preconditioning stimuli, HBO is benign and has clinically translational potential. In this review, we will summarize the results in experimental brain injury and clinical studies, elaborate the mechanisms of HBO-PC, and discuss regimes and opinions for future interventions in acute brain injury.

High serum Aspartate transaminase levels on day 3 postliver transplantation correlates with graft and patient survival and would be a valid surrogate for outcome in liver transplantation clinical trials

Aspartate transaminase, a liver specific enzyme released into serum following acute liver injury, is used in experimental organ preservation studies as a measure of liver IR injury. Whether post-operative serum transaminases are a good indicator of IR injury and subsequent graft and patient survival in human liver transplantation remains controversial. A single centre prospectively collected liver transplant database was analysed for the period 1988-2012. All patients were followed up for 5 years or until graft failure. Transaminase levels on the 1st, 3rd and 7th post-operative days were correlated with the patient demographics, operative outcomes, post-operative complications and both graft and patient survival via a binary logistic regression analysis. Graft and patient survival at 3 months was 80.3% and 87.5%. AST levels on the 3rd (P = 0.005) and 7th (P = 0.001) post-operative days correlated with early graft loss. Patients were grouped by their AST level (day 3): <107iU, 107-1213iU, 1213-2744iU and >2744iU. The incidence of graft loss at 3 months was 10%, 12%. 27% and 59% and 1-year patient mortality was 12%, 14%, 27% and 62%. Day 3 AST levels correlate with patient and graft outcome post-liver transplantation and would be a suitable surrogate endpoint for clinical trials in liver transplantation.

Impact of ischemic preconditioning on outcome in clinical liver surgery: a systematic review

Background. Ischemia-reperfusion injury is a major cause of post-liver-surgery complications. Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been demonstrated to protect against ischemia-reperfusion injury. Clinical studies have examined IPC in liver surgery but with conflicting results. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of IPC on outcome in clinical liver surgery. Methods. An electronic search of OVID Medline and Embase databases was performed to identify studies that reported outcomes in patients undergoing liver surgery subjected to IPC. Basic descriptive statistics were used to summarise data from individual clinical studies. Results. 1093 articles were identified, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Seven topics were selected and analysed by subgroup. There were 10 studies in cadaveric liver transplantation, 2 in living-related liver transplantation, and 12 in liver resection. IPC decreases hepatocellular damage in liver surgery as determined by transaminases but does not translate to any significant clinical benefit in orthotopic liver transplant or liver resection. Conclusions. Available clinical evidence does not support routine use of IPC in liver surgery as it does not offer any apparent benefit in perioperative outcome. Further clinical studies will need to be carried out to determine the subset of patients that will benefit from IPC.

Impact of ischaemic preconditioning on experimental steatotic livers following hepatic ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Steatotic livers are vulnerable to the deleterious effects of ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) that occur after hepatic surgery. Ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) has been shown to abrogate the effects of IRI in patients undergoing hepatic surgery. Experimental studies have suggested that IPC may be beneficial in steatotic livers subjected to IRI.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of IPC on steatotic livers following hepatic IRI in experimental models.

METHODS

An electronic search of the OVID Medline and EMBASE databases was performed to identify studies that reported clinically relevant outcomes in animal models of hepatic steatosis subjected to IPC and IRI.

RESULTS

A total of 1093 articles were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable heterogeneity in the type of animal model, and duration and type of IRI. Increased macrovesicular steatosis (> 30%) was associated with a poor outcome following IRI. Ischaemic preconditioning was found to be beneficial in > 30% steatotic livers and provided for decreased histological damage, improved liver function findings and increased survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Experimental evidence supports the use of IPC in steatotic livers undergoing IRI. These findings may be applicable to patients undergoing liver surgery. However, clinical studies are required to validate the efficacy of IPC in this setting.

Effect of remote ischemic postconditioning on patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation

The aim of this study was to evaluate the protective effect of remote ischemic postconditioning (RIPostC) on graft function and acute kidney injury (AKI) after living donor liver transplantation (LT). Recipients undergoing elective living donor LT were randomly assigned to either the RIPostC group or the control group. Immediately after reperfusion, 4 cycles of ischemia and reperfusion lasting for 5 minutes each were performed on 1 upper limb in the RIPostC group. Graft function was assessed through evaluations of the serum levels of total bilirubin and liver enzymes and the prothrombin time for 28 days after surgery. The incidence of AKI, as defined by the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-Stage Kidney Disease classification, was evaluated within 28 days of the operation. In addition, the incidences of graft dysfunction, acute cellular rejection, and major complications; the 1-, 3-, and 6-month mortality rates; the length of stay in the intensive care unit; and the length of hospital stay were also investigated. In all, 78 patients were enrolled in the analysis (n = 39 in each group). No differences in graft function or clinical outcomes were observed between the groups. The incidences of postoperative AKI were 38% (n = 15) in the RIPostC group and 72% (n = 28) in the control group (P = 0.006). Despite no improvements in postoperative graft function, RIPostC decreased the incidence of postoperative AKI after living donor LT in this study. However, no other clinical benefits with respect to the complication rate, length of hospital stay, or short-term mortality rate were observed. Thus, further studies will be needed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of RIPostC in LT fully.

Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation increase mortality, morbidity, or hospital stay and are likely to increase overall transplant costs. All liver transplantation patients receive antibiotic prophylaxis. This is an update of our 2008 Cochrane systematic review on the same topic in which we identified seven randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of different methods aimed at preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications in people undergoing liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language or publication status. We excluded quasi-randomised and other observational studies for assessment of benefits, but not for harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available-case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only seven trials for inclusion, including 614 participants. Only one trial was of low risk of bias risk. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low. There were five comparisons in the seven trials: selective bowel decontamination versus inactive control; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics with probiotics; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics; prebiotics with probiotics versus prebiotics; and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus control. Four trials compared selective bowel decontamination versus placebo or no treatment. In one trial, participants were randomised to selective bowel decontamination, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic), or to inactivated lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In one trial, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic) was compared with inactive lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In the remaining trial, different doses of G-CSF and placebo were compared. There was no trial comparing different antibiotic prophylactic regimens in people undergoing liver transplantation. Most trials included adults undergoing elective liver transplantation. There was no significant difference in proportion of people who died or required retransplantation between the intervention and control groups in any of the five comparison groups. MORTALITY There were no differences between 190 participants (three trials); 5/87 (adjusted proportion: 6.2%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 7/103 (6.8%) in inactive control group; RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.72); 63 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR - not estimable; 64 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 0/65 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; and 194 participants (one trial); 22/124 (17.7%) in G-CSF group versus 10/70 (14.3%) in placebo group; RR 1.24 (95% 0.62 to 2.47). RETRANSPLANTATION There were no differences between 132 participants (two trials); 4/58 (adjusted proportion: 6.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 6/74 (8.1%) in inactive control group; RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.85); 63 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 2.91 (0.12 to 68.81); 64 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR 3.00 (95% CI 0.13 to 71.00); 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 1/65 (1.5%) in prebiotics group; RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.9); and 194 participants (one trial); 10/124 (7.1%) in G-CSF group versus 5/70 (7.1%) in placebo group; RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.17).There was no significant difference in the graft rejections, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay between the intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons. Overall, 193/611 participants (31.6%) developed infective complications. The proportion of people who developed infective complications and the number of infective complication episodes were significantly higher in the selective bowel decontamination group than in the prebiotics with probiotics group (1 study; 63 participants; 15/32 (46.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 (12.9%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 3.63; 95% CI 1.36 to 9.74 and 23/32 participants (0.72 infective complications per participant) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 participants (0.13 infective complications per participant) in prebiotics with probiotics group; rate ratio 5.58; 95% CI 1.94 to 16.09). There was no significant difference between the proportion of participants who developed infection and the number of infection episodes between the intervention group and control group in any of the other comparisons.No trials reported quality of life and overall serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no clear evidence for any intervention offering significant benefits in the reduction of bacterial infections and wound complications in liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination may even increase the rate of infections compared with prebiotics with probiotics. The confidence intervals were wide and further randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias are necessary.

Antiviral interventions for liver transplant patients with recurrent graft infection due to hepatitis C virus

BACKGROUND

Antiviral therapy for recurrent hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation is controversial due to unresolved balance between benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the therapeutic benefits and harms of different antiviral regimens in patients with hepatitis C re-infected grafts after liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing various antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the treatment of hepatitis C virus recurrence in liver transplantation for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case-analysis. In the presence of only trials for a dichotomous outcome, we performed the Fisher's exact test.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 17 trials with 736 patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. All trials had high risk of bias. Five hundred and one patients randomised in 11 trials provided information for various comparisons in this systematic review after excluding post-randomisation drop-outs and patients from trials that did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The comparisons for which outcomes were available included pegylated (peg) interferon versus control; peg interferon plus ribavirin versus control; ribavirin plus peg interferon versus peg interferon; peg interferon (1.5 μg/kg/week) plus ribavirin versus peg interferon (0.5 μg/kg/week) plus ribavirin; amantadine plus peg interferon plus ribavirin versus peg interferon plus ribavirin; interferon versus control; interferon plus ribavirin versus control; ribavirin versus interferon; and ribavirin versus placebo. Long-term follow-up was not available in these trials. There were no significant differences in mortality, retransplantation, graft rejections requiring retransplantation or medical treatment, or fibrosis worsening between the groups in any of the comparisons in which these outcomes were reported. Quality of life and liver decompensation were not reported in any of the trials. There was a significantly higher proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events in the ribavirin plus peg interferon combination therapy group than in the peg interferon monotherapy group (1 trial; 56 participants; 17/28 (60.7%) in the intervention group versus 5/28 (17.9%) in the control group; RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.46 to 7.94). There was no significant difference in proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events or in the number of serious adverse events between the intervention and control groups in the other comparisons that reported serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Considering the lack of clinical benefit, there is currently no evidence to recommend or refute antiviral treatment for recurrent liver graft infection with hepatitis C virus. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risk of random errors with adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.

Antiviral prophylaxis for the prevention of chronic hepatitis C virus in patients undergoing liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether prophylactic antiviral therapy is indicated to improve patient and graft survival in patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic decompensated hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different prophylactic antiviral therapies for patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status and comparing various prophylactic antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the prophylactic treatment of patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 501 liver transplant recipients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection were randomised in 12 trials to various experimental interventions and control interventions. The proportion of genotype I varied between 49% and 100% in the seven trials that reported the genotype. Only one or two trials were included under each comparison. All the trials were of high risk of bias. Ten trials including 441 liver transplant recipients provided data for this review.There were no significant differences in the 90-day mortality (1 trial; 81 participants; 5/35 (adjusted proportion: 14.2%) in interferon group versus 5/46 (10.9%) in control group; RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.41 to 4.19); mortality at maximal follow-up (2 trials; 105 participants; 7/47 (adjusted proportion: 14.8%) in interferon group versus 10/58 (17.2%) in control group; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.08); long-term mortality (1 trial; 81 participants; HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.56); mortality at maximal follow-up (1 trial; 54 participants; 1/26 (3.9%) in pegylated interferon group versus 2/28 (7.1%) in control group; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.59); 90-day mortality (1 trial; 115 participants; 5/55 (9.1%) in pegylated interferon plus ribavirin group versus 3/60 (5.0%) in control group; RR 1.82; 95% 0.46 to 7.25); 90-day mortality (3 trials; 53 participants; 3/37 (adjusted proportion: 4.3%) in HCV antibody group versus 1/16 (6.3%) in placebo group; RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.15 to 3.11); or 90-day mortality (2 trials; 31 participants; 2/14 (adjusted proportion: 16.2%) in HCV antibody high-dose group versus 1/17 (5.9%) in HCV antibody low-dose group; RR 2.75; 95% CI; 0.30 to 25.35). There were no significant differences in the retransplantation at maximal follow-up (2 trials; 105 participants; 2/47 (adjusted proportion: 4.0%) in interferon group versus 2/58 (3.4%) in control group; RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.22 to 6.2); 90-day retransplantation (1 trial; 18 participants; 1/12 (8.3%) in HCV antibody group versus 0/6 (0%) in control group; RR 1.71; 95% CI 0.09 to 32.93); or 90-day retransplantation (1 trial; 12 participants; 1/6 (17.7%) in HCV antibody high-dose group versus 0/6 (0%) in HCV antibody low-dose group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.15 to 61.74). There were no significant differences in serious adverse events, graft rejection, worsening of fibrosis, or HCV recurrence between intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons that reported these outcomes. None of the trials reported quality of life, liver decompensation, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay. Life-threatening adverse events were not reported in either group in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to recommend prophylactic antiviral treatment to prevent recurrence of HCV infection either in primary liver transplantation or retransplantation. Further randomised clinical trials with adequate trial methodology and adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.

Current knowledge on oxidative stress in hepatic ischemia/reperfusion

Ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury associated with hepatic resections and liver transplantation remains a serious complication in clinical practice, despite several attempts to solve the problem. The redox balance, which is pivotal for normal function and integrity of tissues, is dysregulated during I/R, leading to an accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Formation of ROS and oxidant stress are the disease mechanisms most commonly invoked in hepatic I/R injury. The present review examines published results regarding possible sources of ROS and their effects in the context of I/R injury. We also review the effect of oxidative stress on marginal livers, which are more vulnerable to I/R-induced oxidative stress. Strategies to improve the viability of marginal livers could reduce the risk of dysfunction after surgery and increase the number of organs suitable for transplantation. The review also considers the therapeutic strategies developed in recent years to reduce the oxidative stress induced by hepatic I/R, and we seek to explain why some of them have not been applied clinically. New antioxidant strategies that have yielded promising results for hepatic I/R injury are discussed.

Challenges to research and innovation to optimize deceased donor organ quality and quantity

Solid organ transplantation is encumbered by an increasing number of waitlisted patients unrequited by the current organ supply. Preclinical models suggest that advances in deceased donor management and treatment can increase the quantity and quality of organs available for transplantation. However, the science of donor intervention and the execution of high quality, prospective, multi-center, randomized-controlled trials are restricted by a myriad of logistical challenges mired in regulatory and ethical ambiguity. By highlighting the obstacles to conducting research in deceased donors, this report endeavors to stimulate the creation of a multi-disciplinary framework to facilitate the design, implementation and supervision of innovative trials that increase the quantity and/or quality of deceased donor organs.

Ischemic preconditioning of rat livers from non-heart-beating donors decreases parenchymal cell killing and increases graft survival after transplantation

A critical shortage of donors exists for liver transplantation, which non-heart-beating cadaver donors could help ease. This study evaluated ischemic preconditioning to improve graft viability after non-heart-beating liver donation in rats. Ischemic preconditioning was performed by clamping the portal vein and hepatic artery for 10 min followed by unclamping for 5 min. Subsequently, the aorta was cross-clamped for up to 120 min. After 2 h of storage, livers were either transplanted or perfused with warm buffer containing trypan blue. Aortic clamping for 60 and 120 min prior to liver harvest markedly decreased 30-day graft survival from 100% without aortic clamping to 50% and 0%, respectively, which ischemic preconditioning restored to 100 and 50%. After 60 min of aortic clamping, loss of viability of parenchymal and nonparenchymal cells was 22.6 and 5.6%, respectively, which preconditioning decreased to 3.0 and 1.5%. Cold storage after aortic clamping further increased parenchymal and non-parenchymal cell killing to 40.4 and 10.1%, respectively, which ischemic preconditioning decreased to 12.4 and 1.8%. In conclusion, ischemic preconditioning markedly decreased cell killing after subsequent sustained warm ischemia. Most importantly, ischemic preconditioning restored 100% graft survival of livers harvested from non-heart-beating donors after 60 min of aortic clamping.

Recent advances in liver preconditioning: Thyroid hormone, n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and iron

Liver preconditioning (PC), defined as an enhanced tolerance to injuring stimuli induced by previous specific maneuvers triggering beneficial functional and molecular changes, is of crucial importance in human liver transplantation and major hepatic resection. For these reasons, numerous PC strategies have been evaluated in experimental models of ischemia-reperfusion liver injury, which have not been transferred to clinical application due to side effects, toxicity and difficulties in implementation, with the exception of the controversial ischemic PC. In recent years, our group has undertaken the assessment of alternate experimental liver PC protocols that might have application in the clinical setting. These include thyroid hormone (T(3)), n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 LCPUFA), or iron, which suppressed liver damage due to the 1 h ischemia-20 h reperfusion protocol. T(3), n-3 LCPUFA and iron are hormetic agents that trigger biologically beneficial effects in the low-dose range, whose multifactorial mechanisms of action are discussed in the work.

Techniques of flushing and reperfusion for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Various techniques of flushing and reperfusion have been advocated to improve outcomes after liver transplantation. There is considerable uncertainty as to which method is superior.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different methods of flushing and reperfusion during liver implantation in the transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials that were performed to compare different techniques of flushing and reperfusion 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 model and the random-effects model using RevMan analysis. For each outcome we calculated the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR), rate ratio, mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials involving 418 patients for this review. The sample size in the trials varied from 30 to 131 patients. Only one trial involving 131 patients was of low risk of bias for mortality. This trial was at high risk of bias for other outcomes. Four trials excluded patients who underwent liver transplantation for acute liver failure. All the trials included livers obtained from cadaveric donors. The remaining five trials were of high risk of bias for all outcomes. Liver transplantation was performed by the conventional method (caval replacement) in two trials and piggy-back method (caval preservation) in one trial. The method of liver transplantation was not available in the remaining three trials. The comparisons performed included an initial hepatic artery flush versus initial portal vein flush; blood venting via inferior vena cava in addition to venting of storage fluid versus no blood venting; initial hepatic artery reperfusion versus initial portal vein reperfusion; simultaneous hepatic artery and portal vein reperfusion versus initial portal vein reperfusion; and retrograde inferior vena cava reperfusion versus simultaneous hepatic artery and portal vein reperfusion. Only one or two trials could be included under each comparison. There was no significant difference in mortality, graft survival, or severe morbidity rates in any of the comparisons. Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of any specific technique of flushing or reperfusion during liver transplantation. Due to the paucity of data, absence of evidence should not be confused with evidence of absence of any differences. Further well designed trials with low risk of systematic error and low risk of random errors are necessary.

Contributions of heme oxygenase-1 in postconditioning-protected ischemia-reperfusion injury in rat liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), an oxidative stress-response gene up-regulated by various physiological and exogenous stimuli, has cytoprotective activities. Ischemic postconditioning (Postcon) can protect an organ from ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury. In the present study, we investigated the potential contributions of HO-1 to Postcon-dependent protection against I/R injury in rat liver transplantation models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four groups: sham group with laparotomy for liver exposure; I/R group with 24-hour cold ischemia of the donor liver; Postcon group with the same treatment as the I/R group plus ischemic Postcon; and zinc protoporphyrin (ZnPP HO-1 inhibitor) + Postcon group treated the same as the Postcon cohort with donors pretreated using ZnPP 24 hours before the I/R injury. We measured liver tissue and peripheral blood samples collected at 6 hours after reperfusion and serum transaminase levels, histopathology, liver tissue malondialdehyde (MDA) content, superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and HO-1 expression in the liver.

RESULTS

Postcon significantly diminished the elevation of serum transaminases levels after I/R injury when compared with I/R and ZnPP+Postcon groups. Postcon treated rats showed significantly lower MDA production and higher SOD activity. HO-1 was induced in rat livers exposed to Postcon; its levels were obviously overexpressed after 6 hours in Postcon rats. Inhibiting the expression of HO-1, negated the protective effects of Postcon.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction of HO-1 in the Postcon condition played a protective role against hepatic I/R injury and enhanced the early antioxidative activity. The protective effects of Postcon were significantly associated with greater intrahepatic HO-1 expression.

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.

Preconditioning, postconditioning, and remote conditioning in solid organ transplantation: basic mechanisms and translational applications

Ischemia and reperfusion (I/Rp) injury is inherent to solid organ transplantation and can result in primary nonfunction or delayed function of grafts, which is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality posttransplantation. It is also a major obstacle for the use of marginal grafts to increase the donor pool, as these grafts are prone to a higher degree of I/Rp injury. Pre-, post-, and remote conditioning are protective strategies against I/Rp injury, which can be applied in the transplant setting. These strategies hold the potential to reduce graft injury and to safely expand the donor pool. However, despite convincing experimental data, the protective effects of the "conditioning" protocols remain unclear, and only few have translated to clinical practice. This review summarizes pre-, post-, and remote conditioning strategies in clinical use in solid organ transplantation and discusses an overview of the mechanistic pathways involved in each strategy.

Impact of reversible cardiac arrest in the brain-dead organ donor on the outcome of adult liver transplantation

Several donor and graft characteristics are associated with higher failure rates for deceased donor liver transplantation (LT). The influence of reversible cardiac arrest in the donor on these failure rates is unclear because of scarce and inconsistent data. The aim of this study was to determine whether reversible cardiac arrest in the donor could affect the early postoperative outcome of LT. From January 2008 to February 2010, 165 patients underwent LT, and they were retrospectively divided into 2 groups: a cardiac arrest group (34 patients who received grafts from donors who had experienced reversible cardiac arrest before organ procurement) and a control group (131 patients who received grafts from donors without a history of reversible cardiac arrest). The postoperative complications and the graft and recipient outcomes were prospectively recorded for all the patients. Graft failure was defined as death or the need for retransplantation within 90 days of LT. Donors in the cardiac arrest group displayed higher serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels than donors in the control group [AST: 104 (19-756) versus 42 IU/L (10-225 IU/L), P < 0.001; ALT: 73 (13-869) versus 29 IU/L (6-549 IU/L), P < 0.001]. However, no difference in the graft failure rates was found between the 2 groups (11.8% versus 8.4%, P = 0.51). The biological parameters 5 and 7 days after LT and the peak AST/ALT levels were similar for the 2 groups. Furthermore, the 2 groups had similar graft and patient survival rates at the 6-month mark (87% and 88%, respectively). In conclusion, our study shows that brief and reversible cardiac arrest in organ donors does not affect post-LT allograft survival and function, even though liver function test values are higher for these donors. However, the risk of using these grafts needs to be balanced against the potential benefits for the recipients.

How to protect liver graft with nitric oxide

Organ preservation and ischemia reperfusion injury associated with liver transplantation play an important role in the induction of graft injury. One of the earliest events associated with the reperfusion injury is endothelial cell dysfunction. It is generally accepted that endothelial nitric oxide synthase (e-NOS) is cell-protective by mediating vasodilatation, whereas inducible nitric oxide synthase mediates liver graft injury after transplantation. We conducted a critical review of the literature evaluating the potential applications of regulating and promoting e-NOS activity in liver preservation and transplantation, showing the most current evidence to support the concept that enhanced bioavailability of NO derived from e-NOS is detrimental to ameliorate graft liver preservation, as well as preventing subsequent graft reperfusion injury. This review deals mainly with the beneficial effects of promoting “endogenous” pathways for NO generation, via e-NOS inducer drugs in cold preservation solution, surgical strategies such as ischemic preconditioning, and alternative “exogenous” pathways that focus on the enrichment of cold storage liquid with NO donors. Finally, we also provide a basic bench-to-bed side summary of the liver physiology and cell signalling mechanisms that account for explaining the e-NOS protective effects in liver preservation and transplantation.

Routine drainage for orthotopic liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Routine use of abdominal drainage in patients undergoing liver transplantation is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after orthotopic liver transplantation versus no drainage and to address different drain types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the MetaRegister of Controlled Trials until March 2011 to identify the randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) addressing this issue.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors identified the trials for inclusion independently. Two authors planned to collect the data independently. We planned to analyse the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we planned to calculate the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any randomised clinical trials addressing this issue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to conclude whether routine abdominal drainage is useful or harmful in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. Evidence from non-randomised studies of high risk of bias showed conflicting results on the impact of routine drainage in orthotopic liver transplantation on serious adverse events, showing that this question is an important clinical research question. Well-designed randomised clinical trials with adequate sample size to decrease systematic errors and to decrease random errors are necessary.

Veno-venous bypass versus none for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Veno-venous bypass is used to overcome the effects of clamping of the inferior vena cava and portal vein during liver transplanation. The routine use of veno-venous bypass is, however, controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of veno-venous bypass (irrespective of open or percutaneous technique; heparin-coated or no heparin-coating) versus no veno-venous bypass during liver transplantation. To compare the benefits and harms of the different techniques of veno-venous bypass during liver transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until December 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing veno-venous bypass during liver transplantation (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat or available case analysis. For binary outcomes, we used the Fisher's exact test since none of the comparisons of binary outcomes included more than one trial.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three trials with high risk of bias which compared veno-venous bypass (n = 65) versus no veno-venous bypass (n = 66). None of the trials reported patient or graft survival. There were no significant differences regarding renal failure or blood transfusion requirements between the two groups. None of the trials reported on the morbidity related to veno-venous bypass or the requirement of veno-venous bypass in the control group.We identified one trial with high risk of bias which compared percutaneous (n = 20) versus open technique (n =19) of veno-venous bypass. The patient or graft survival was not reported. There was no difference in veno-venous bypass related morbidity between the two groups. The operating time was significantly shorter in the percutaneous technique group (MD -59 minutes; 95% CI -102 to -16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support or refute the use of veno-venous bypass in liver transplantation. There is no evidence to prefer any particular technique of veno-venous bypass in liver transplantation.