Changing faces of liver retransplantation: it is all about selection

Retransplantation in Living Donor Liver Transplantation

The need for retransplantation after living donor liver transplantation can occur early, mainly because of technical difficulties such as hepatic artery thrombosis or as a result of early allograft dysfunction as a symptom of small-for-size syndrome. Patients with autoimmune diseases may develop progressive graft failure from recurrent disease. The ethics of retransplantation can be complicated by the cause of the initial liver disease, which may be self-inflicted or the outcome of malignancy. This is especially true in countries without the availability of deceased donors for salvage, and a second living donor would be needed. Nevertheless, patients who experience early or late graft failure should be considered for retransplant if they are deemed acceptable candidates. When a living donor is required for retransplant, the equipoise between donor risk and autonomy and recipient outcome should be considered.

Is Elective Status a Predictor of Poor Survival in Liver Retransplantation?

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver retransplantation (reLT) is considered to have poorer outcomes than primary transplantation. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of medical urgency status as a predictor of patient survival after reLT.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients who underwent reLT were included in this retrospective study. Urgent or elective status was based on the judgment of the surgical team, selected variables, and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with patient survival following reLT.

RESULTS

Overall survival of the patient cohort was 57% at 1 year and 54.3% at 3 years after reTL. Survival in urgent-status patients was 68.8% and 63.4% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, whereas the survival rate for elective patients was 40.0% at both time points. Mortality was significantly associated with elective status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.42; P = .046) at 1 year, but was no longer significant (HR, 2.19; P < .069) after 3 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective status is associated with poorer outcome. Patient selection determines long-term survival more than any other single factor, so for patients designated to an elective status, prompt retransplantation should be encouraged.

Relationship between GH/IGF-1 axis, graft recovery, and early survival in patients undergoing liver transplantation

Background. High levels of IGF-1 have been reported in patients with initial poor function of the graft after liver transplantation (LT). Correlation with other clinical variables or early survival has not been extensively investigated. Aim. To evaluate the GH/IGF-1 profile as a function of liver recovery and patients' early survival after LT. Methods. 30 transplanted patients (23 survivors and 7 nonsurvivors), were retrospectively enrolled in the study. GH and IGF-1 serum levels were assessed at baseline, graft reperfusion, and 1, 7, 15, 30 , 90, and 360 days after LT. Individual biochemical variables were also recorded. Results. After grafting, IGF-1 in blood linearly correlated with cholesterol (r = 0.6, P = 0.001). IGF-1 levels from day 15 after surgery were statistically higher in survivors as compared to nonsurvivors. ROC curves analysis identified an IGF-1 cut-off >90 μg/L, from day 15 after surgery, as a good predictor of survival (sensitivity 86%, specificity 95%, and P < 0.001). Conclusions. After LT, GH levels correlate with the extent of cytolysis, while IGF-1 is an indicator of liver synthetic function recovery. IGF-1 levels >90 μg/L (day 15–30) seem to be an indicator of short-term survival.

Liver retransplantation: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

The curative effect of liver transplantation for patients with end-stage liver disease was encouraging in recent years and the 5-year patient survival rate can reach up to 70%. However, some patients might lose grafts due to a variety of reasons, including bile duct complications, vascular complications, primary non-function, graft rejection and disease recurrence etc. Liver retransplantation (re-LT) was the only available means for those patients whose initial grafts had failed, but the inferior outcomes of re-LT compared to primary liver transplantation (PLT) continue to be a major concern. This study aimed to analyze the indications for re-LT, optimal timing of re-LT, and strategies to improve the survival rate after re-LT.

METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2006, we performed 738 liver transplants and 39 re-LT (5.3%) at our center. A retrospective analysis was performed to identify factors (indication for re-LT, preoperative score of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), interval to re-LT from primary liver transplantation, methods of vascular and biliary reconstruction and common causes of death) associated with survival.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up period was 1.8 years (1 to 5 years). Patients with MELD score less than 20 were better than those whose MELD score was > 20 and MELD score > 30 (1-year survival, 80.0% versus 50.0% and 3/5). The perioperative survival rate of patients who received re-LT at an interval of more than 30 days and less than 8 days after the initial transplantation was higher than those who received retransplantation between 8 to 30 days following the first operation (88.5% and 74.3% versus 50.0%). The main causes of death were infection (60.0%), multiple organ failure (20.0%), vascular complications (10.0%) and biliary fistula (10.0%) in perioperative period. The overall patient survival rate of 1-month, 6-month and 1-year was 80.0%, 76.7% and 66.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested the favorable results after re-LT. The analysis also showed optimal timing of operation, refined surgical techniques, individualized immunosuppressive regimen and effective prophylaxis and treatment of perioperative infection play an important role in achieving a higher survival after re-LT.