Retransplantation for hepatitis C: what do we really know?

Correlation between selected prognostic factors and postoperative course in liver transplant recipients

AIM

The objective was to identify the major prognostic factors influencing liver function after transplantation that predict the postoperative course and long-term survival among liver transplant recipients. We analyzed the results of biochemical, microbiological, serologic, and pathologic studies of the donor and recipient, as well as intraoperative data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 542 liver transplant recipients, 215 (39.7%) were analyzed in the period from 1989 to 2006. Patients were divided according to the mechanism leading to the liver disease: group I, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (n = 80, 37.0%); group II, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (n = 33, 15.0%); group III, HBV and HCV infection (n = 13, 6.0%); group IV, alcoholic liver disease (ALD) (n = 66, 31.0%); and group V, autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) (n = 23, 11.0%).

RESULTS

Prediction of patient survival based on clinical parameters showed a better prognostic value than that based only on liver function tests. Transplant urgency scores-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), delta MELD and United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)-enabled us to predict early and long-term patient survival after liver transplantation. Update of these scores, reflecting the patient's condition, enabled us to evaluate pretransplant life-threatening factors and urgency level. Organ donation predictive factors were age, viral status, and degree of liver steatosis. Cold and warm ischemia times still were major prognostic factor. Routine biliary drainage resulted in worse long-term survival than non-drained patients. Liver transplantation for ALD showed the highest complication rate. Chronic liver rejection occurred more frequently in the AIH transplanted group. The most useful predictive factors for 1-year survival were urea/creatinine and liver function tests: aspartate and alanine aminotransferases, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase the International normalized ratio, and Quick.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis of patient outcomes after liver transplantation based on clinical parameters showed greater value than evaluation of the laboratory data.

Significant influence of the primary liver disease on the outcomes of hepatic retransplantation

BACKGROUND

There are many indications for hepatic retransplantation.

AIM

To identify factors influencing retransplantation needs and outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retransplantation records from January 1993 to March 2005 were analysed. Patient and disease characteristics and survival outcomes for retransplantation were compared between various groups.

RESULTS

Totally, 286 primary and 42 hepatic retransplantations were performed. Retransplantation indications included primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), primary biliary cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C (HCV), chronic active hepatitis (CAH), and alcohol-related disease. Mean follow-up post-retransplantation was 31 +/- 9 months. Actuarial patient survival at 3 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and at the end of study was 71.4, 69, 59.5, 54.7, and 50%, respectively. Early and late retransplantation had 1-year survival of 73 and 68.5%, respectively. Retransplantation need was significantly higher for PSC, HCV, and CAH.

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatic retransplantation remains a successful salvage option for transplant complications; however, its need is significantly influenced by the primary liver disease.

Retransplantation for hepatitis C: results of a U.S. multicenter retransplant study

It is widely perceived that outcomes are relatively poor following retransplantation (reTX) for recurrent of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Transplant centers debate the utility of offering another liver to these patients. A U.S. study group was formed to retrospectively compare survival after reTX in patients with recurrent HCV (histologically proven) and those transplanted for other indications greater than 90 days after first transplantation, from 1996 to 2004. Patients were divided into 3 groups; group 1: HCV reTX (n = 43), group 2: non-HCV reTX (n = 73), and group 3: recurrent HCV but no reTX (n = 156). They were predominantly male, Caucasian, with mean age of 47.2 yr. The commonest indications for non-HCV reTX were chronic rejection (36%), hepatic artery thrombosis (31%) and recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis (17%). Duration of hospitalization, number of intensive care unit (ICU) days, and time interval from listing to transplantation or reTX were similar between reTX groups. The 1-yr and 3-yr survival rates after reTX were also similar for HCV reTX and non-HCV reTX groups (1 yr, 69% vs. 73%; 3 yr, 49% vs. 55%). Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores were not predictive of survival from reTX. However, with a MELD score of >30 in the non HCV group, survival was <50%. In the recurrent HCV not undergoing reTX group, 30% were reevaluated for reTX but only 15% were listed for reTX and the 3-yr survival was 47%. The most common reasons for not listing for reTX were recurrent HCV within 6 months (22%), fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (19%), and renal dysfunction (9%). In conclusion, patients retransplanted for recurrent HCV had similar 1-yr and 3-yr survival when compared to patients undergoing reTX for other indications. MELD scores were not predictive of post-reTX survival. Survival was <50% in the non-HCV reTx group with MELD score of >30. Many patients with recurrent HCV are not considered for reTX and die from recurrent disease.

Invasive aspergillosis in the recipients of liver retransplantation

Retransplantation is a major risk factor for invasive aspergillosis in liver transplant recipients. However, the risk for invasive aspergillosis with time elapsed since retransplantation, clinical characteristics, and outcome of patients who develop this infection after retransplantation of the liver has not been defined. Patients comprised 17 liver retransplant recipients with invasive aspergillosis between 1990 and 2004. Retransplantation was considered early if it was performed within 30 days and late if performed after 30 days of the first or primary transplant. Retransplant recipients comprised 25% of all cases of invasive aspergillosis after liver transplantation. Fifty-three percent of the Aspergillus infections occurred within 30 days, and 76% within 90 days of retransplantation. In all, 53% (9/17) of the patients were late retransplant recipients. Late compared to early retransplant recipients with invasive aspergillosis were more likely to have central nervous system involvement with invasive aspergillosis (56% vs. 0%, P = 0.03). Mortality rate was 100% for late and 63% for early retransplant recipients with Aspergillus infections. In conclusion, time-varying risk for invasive aspergillosis after retransplantation has implications relevant for guiding antifungal prophylaxis. Given a greater risk for disseminated infection and poor outcome in late retransplant recipients with aspergillosis, potent and aggressive antifungal therapy should be considered upfront in these patients.