Liver transplantation with preservation of the inferior vena cava: lessons learned through 2,000 cases

Stapled Anastomosis for Side-to-Side Cavo-Cavostomy in Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

In liver transplantation, a side-to-side anastomosis is one of the commonly performed techniques of the inferior vena cava reconstruction. The authors report a case of an application of an endoscopic vascular linear stapler for a side-to-side caval anastomosis during deceased-donor liver transplantation. The back table procedure was performed in a standard fashion for a side-to-side anastomosis. The linear vascular stapler was introduced during the temporary clamping of the recipient's inferior vena cava and the anastomosis was created without problems. Suturing of the resulting defect completed the anastomosis. The use of the stapler resulted in a shortening of the anastomosis time. The staple line after the reperfusion of the graft was completely sealed. The patient's postoperative course was uncomplicated and post-operative ultrasound and computed tomography confirmed the patency of the anastomosis. This case demonstrates a novel approach to a side-to-side caval reconstruction during liver transplantation that enables a shortening of the implantation time and may improve the quality of anastomoses.

CAQ Corner: Surgical evaluation for liver transplantation

The evaluation of a liver transplantation candidate is a complex and detailed process that in many cases must be done in an expedited manner because of the critically ill status of some patients with end-stage liver disease. It involves great effort from and the collaboration of multiple disciplines, and during the evaluation several studies and interventions are performed to assess and potentially prepare a patient for liver transplant. Here we review the liver transplantation evaluation from a surgical perspective.

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).

Comparison of Three Inferior Vena Cava Reconstruction Techniques in Adult Orthotopic Liver Transplantation: Result From King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thailand

BACKGROUND

In orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), 3 caval reconstruction techniques are being performed worldwide. These are conventional, piggyback technique, and side-to-side cavocaval anastomosis (CCA). Each has its own advantages and drawbacks. Herein we report the result from our hospital comparing the 3 techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the detail of OLT performed from January 2008 to March 2020. Data being collected included type of caval reconstruction, blood loss, operative time, ischemic time, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and total hospital stay, and several postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In the given period, 11 conventional, 90 piggyback, and 113 CCA caval reconstruction were done. There were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, operative time, cold ischemic time, and length of ICU and hospital stay. The CCA group had the lowest warm ischemic time (40 minutes) followed by the piggyback technique (43 minutes) and the conventional technique (47 minutes; P < .001). Regarding postoperative complications, there were no statistically significant differences in rate of primary nonfunction, early allograft dysfunction, hepatic artery/portal vein/biliary complication, or rate of acute kidney injury. The hepatic venous outflow complication rate was indifferent between 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed no difference in outflow obstruction rate among the 3 techniques. The choice for reconstruction should rely on the preference of each institute and the suitability of each patient. The CCA technique may provide the lowest warm ischemic time.

Initial piggyback technique facilitates late liver retransplantation - a retrospective monocentric study

Optimal management of inferior vena cava (IVC) is crucial to ensure safety in late liver retransplantation (ReLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate different surgical strategies with regard to IVC in late ReLT. All consecutive late ReLT (≥90 days from the previous transplant) from 2013 to 2018 in a single center was reviewed (n = 66). Of them, 46 (69.7%) were performed without venovenous bypass (VVB) including 29 with caval preservation (CP) and 17 with caval replacement (CR). The remaining 20 cases (30.3%) required the use of VVB. Among ReLT without VVB, CP was associated with a lower number of packed red blood cells (median 4 vs. 7; P = 0.016) and a lower incidence of post-transplant acute kidney injury (6.9% vs. 47.1%; P = 0.003). The feasibility of CP was 95% (14/15) in patients with previous 3-vein piggyback caval anastomosis versus 48.3% (15/31) after other techniques (P = 0.003). Indirect signs of portal hypertension (PHT) before retransplantation were predictive of VVB requirement. Early and long-term outcomes were similar across the three groups (CP without VVB, CR without VVB, and VVB). Preserving the IVC in late ReLT is associated with better postoperative renal function and is facilitated by a previous 3-vein piggyback. Routine CR is not justified in late ReLT.

Strategies to avoid empiric blood product administration in liver transplant surgery

Massive blood loss has been a dreaded complication of liver transplantation, and the accompanying transfusion is associated with adverse outcomes in the form of decreased patient and graft survival. With advances in both surgical techniques and anesthetic management during transplantation, blood and blood products requirements reduced significantly. However, transfusion practices vary among different centers. The altered coagulation parameters in patients with liver cirrhosis results in a state of “rebalanced hemostasis” and patients are just as likely to clot as they are to bleed. Commonly used coagulation tests do not always reflect this new state and can, therefore, be misleading. Transfusion of blood products solely to correct abnormal parameters may worsen the coagulation status, thus adversely affecting patient outcome. Point-of-care tests such as thromboelastometry more reliably predict the risk of bleeding in these patients and in addition may provide quicker turnaround times compared to routine tests. Perioperative management should also include the possibility of thrombosis in these patients, and the use of low-molecular-weight heparin correlates with better patient survival. This review article aims to highlight the concept of rebalanced hemostasis, limitation of routine coagulation tests, and harmful effect of empiric transfusion of blood products.

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.

Individual Surgeon Experience Yields Bimodal Effects on Patient Outcomes After Deceased-Donor Liver Transplant: Results of a Quantile Regression for Survival Data

OBJECTIVES

Data on the relevance of surgeon experience in liver transplant procedures are scarce. In this study, we evaluated the effects of individual surgeon experience on survival outcomes after deceased-donor liver transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of 1193 liver transplant procedures, quantile regression for survival data was performed to assess the effects of surgeon experience. Conditional quantiles of mortality and graft loss were set as primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively, which were categorized as early, midterm, and late.

RESULTS

Greater experience of a surgeon performing hepatectomy increased the risk of early mortality (P = .005) and graft loss (P = .025) when the recipient Model for End-Stage Liver Disease was ≤ 25 and the donor Model for End-Stage Liver Disease was ≤ 1600. In conventional transplant procedures, greater experience of surgeon performing hepatectomy additionally increased the risk of midterm mortality (P = .027) and graft loss (P = .046). Conversely, a graft implant procedure performed by a more experienced surgeon was associated with better early, midterm, and late outcomes after conventional transplants (all P < .037) and reduced the risk of early graft loss when the donor Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was > 1600 (P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

Unexpectedly, individual surgeon experience yields bimodal effects on posttransplant outcomes, dependent on the stage of operation, operative technique, severity of recipient status, and transplant risk profile.

Comparison of three caval reconstruction techniques in orthotopic liver transplantation: A retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Classic caval reconstruction during liver transplantation involves complete cross-clamping and resection of the recipient inferior vena cava (IVC) followed by donor IVC interposition. Other techniques preserve the IVC, with piggyback (PB) to the hepatic veins or side-to-side (SS) caval anastomosis. Avoidance of cross-clamping may be beneficial for minimizing hemodynamic instability and transfusion requirements.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a provincial transplant database (2007-2011). MELD score was used to measure disease severity. Intraoperative blood loss and volume resuscitation were compared between three caval reconstruction techniques using ANOVA.

RESULTS

200 deceased-donor transplants (Classic:58, PB:72, SS:70) were included. Baseline disease severity was equal. Mean case duration was shorter in the PB technique (Classic:366, PB:306, SS:385 min, p < 0.001). Despite similar blood loss, there was significantly less cell saver return, FFP, platelets, and overall resuscitation volume (Classic:12.8, PB:9.5, SS:13.2 L, p = 0.001) utilized in the piggyback technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The PB technique was faster and used less cell saver return, FFP and platelets, despite similar blood loss. Availability of different caval reconstruction techniques allows for a breadth of options in difficult cases.

Transplantation in autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease: liver and/or kidney?

Autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease (ARPKD) is characterized by enlarged kidneys with dilated collecting ducts and congenital hepatic fibrosis. There is a variable rate of progression of kidney and liver disease. Portal hypertension and Caroli's disease occur from liver involvement that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Approximately 40 % of patients have a severe disease phenotype leading to rapid onset of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and signs of portal hypertension and the rest may have predominant involvement of either the kidney or liver. It is important for the physician to establish the extent of organ involvement before deciding on the ultimate plan of management, especially when transplantation is required. Isolated renal transplantation can be considered when liver involvement is minimal. If hepatobiliary disease is prominent, and kidney function is preserved, management options are based on individual characteristics. In the presence of significant liver disease and ESKD, consideration should be given to combined liver kidney transplantation, which can be beneficial in eliminating the consequences of both kidney and liver disease. However, this is a complex surgical procedure that needs to be performed at experienced transplant centers. Improvement in surgical techniques has considerably improved short-term graft survival with the added advantage of the liver offering immunologic protection to the kidney allograft.

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Hepatic Venous Outflow and Renal Function after Conventional versus Piggyback Liver Transplantation

Background

This randomized prospective clinical trial compared the hepatic venous outflow drainage and renal function after conventional with venovenous bypass (n = 15) or piggyback (n = 17) liver transplantation.

Methods

Free hepatic vein pressure (FHVP) and central venous pressure (CVP) measurements were performed after graft reperfusion. Postoperative serum creatinine (Cr) was measured daily on the first week and on the 14^th, 21^st and 28^th postoperative days (PO). The prevalence of acute renal failure (ARF) up to the 28th PO was analyzed by RIFLE-AKIN criteria. A Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach was used for comparison of longitudinal measurements of renal function.

Results

FHVP-CVP gradient > 3 mm Hg was observed in 26.7% (4/15) of the patients in the conventional group and in 17.6% (3/17) in the piggyback group (p = 0.68). Median FHVP-CVP gradient was 2 mm Hg (0–8 mmHg) vs. 3 mm Hg (0–7 mm Hg) in conventional and piggyback groups, respectively (p = 0.73). There is no statistically significant difference between the conventional (1/15) and the piggyback (2/17) groups regarding massive ascites development (p = 1.00). GEE estimated marginal mean for Cr was significantly higher in conventional than in piggyback group (2.14 ± 0.26 vs. 1.47 ± 0.15 mg/dL; p = 0.02). The conventional method presented a higher prevalence of severe ARF during the first 28 PO days (OR = 3.207; 95% CI, 1.010 to 10.179; p = 0.048).

Conclusion

Patients submitted to liver transplantation using conventional or piggyback methods present similar results regarding venous outflow drainage of the graft. Conventional with venovenous bypass technique significantly increases the harm of postoperative renal dysfunction.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01707810

Caval reconstruction techniques in orthotopic liver transplantation

There are several caval reconstruction techniques currently in use for orthotopic liver transplantation. These include caval replacement or the conventional technique, performed with or without venovenous bypass, piggyback technique with anastomosis with two or three hepatic veins with or without cavotomy and modifications of the piggyback technique including end-to-side and side-to-side cavocaval anastomosis. There are few randomized controlled trials comparing the use of these techniques and our knowledge of their comparability is based on a few multi- and many single-center retrospective and prospective reviews. Although there are advantages and disadvantages for each technique, it is advisable that the surgeon perform the technique with which they have the most the experience and at which they are the most skilled as excellent outcomes can be obtained with any of the caval reconstruction options discussed.

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.

Different cava reconstruction techniques in liver transplantation: piggyback versus cava resection

BACKGROUND

Originally, cava reconstruction (CR) in liver transplantation meant complete resection and reinsertion of the donor cava. Alternatively, preservation of the recipients inferior vena cava (IVC) with side-to-side anastomosis (known as "piggyback") can be performed. Here, partial clamping maintains blood flow of the IVC, which may improve cardiovascular stability, reduce blood loss and stabilize kidney function. The aim of this study was to compare both techniques with particular focus on kidney function.

METHODS

A series of 414 patients who had had adult liver transplantations (2006-2009) were included. Among them, 176 (42.5%) patients had piggyback and 238 had classical CR operation, 112 (27.1%) of the patients underwent CR accompanied with veno-venous bypass (CR-B) and 126 (30.4%) without a bypass. The choice of either technique was based on the surgeons' individual preference. Kidney function [serum creatinine, calculated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), RIFLE stages] was assessed over 14 days.

RESULTS

Lab-MELD scores were significantly higher in CR-B (22.5+/-11.0) than in CR (17.3+/-9.0) and piggyback (18.8+/-10.0) (P=0.008). Unexpectedly, the incidences of arterial stenoses (P=0.045) and biliary leaks (P=0.042) were significantly increased in piggyback. Preoperative serum creatinine levels were the highest in CR-B [1.45+/-1.17 vs 1.25+/-0.85 (piggyback) and 1.13+/-0.60 mg/dL (CR); P=0.033]. Although a worsening of postoperative kidney function was observed among all groups, this was most pronounced in CR-B [creatinine day 14: 1.67+/-1.40 vs 1.35+/-0.96 (piggyback) and 1.45+/-1.03 mg/dL (CR); P=0.102]. Accordingly, the proportion of patients displaying RIFLE stages ≥2 was the highest in CR/CR-B (26%/19%) when compared to piggyback (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Piggyback revealed a shorter warm ischemic time, a reduced blood loss, and a decreased risk of acute kidney failure. Thus, piggyback is a useful technique, which should be applied in standard procedures. When piggyback is unfeasible, cava replacement, which displayed a lower incidence of vascular and biliary complications in our study, remains as a safe alternative.

Anesthesia for Liver Transplantation

Orthotopic liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease. More than 6000 procedures are performed in the United States annually with excellent survival rates. The shortage of donor organs leads to continued interest in techniques to enlarge the potential donor pool. Patients presenting for liver transplant suffer from important cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, neurological, and gastroenterological comorbidity. In the Western world, liver failure is increasingly caused by steatohepatitis, and transplant candidates are thus becoming older and more comorbid. The role of the transplant anesthesiologist is highly important in the preoperative assessment, intraoperative management, and postoperative care of these complex and sick patients. Appropriate investigation and management of comorbidities such as coronary artery disease and portopulmonary hypertension is controversial and differs between programs. The transplant procedure is a major surgery, and although massive transfusion is no longer commonplace, there is potential for significant hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, and metabolic disturbance. Liver transplant surgery can be divided into the preanhepatic phase, the anhepatic phase, and the reperfusion phase, with important anesthetic considerations at each point.  An understanding of the surgical techniques used for vascular exclusion of the liver and the role of venovenous bypass is crucial for the anesthesiologist. Recent trends in perioperative care include the use of antifibrinolytic drugs and point-of-care coagulation tests, intraoperative renal replacement therapy, and “fast-track” extubation and postoperative care. Care of patients with fulminant hepatic failure or those receiving split-liver grafts requires special consideration.

Hepatic veins anatomy and piggy-back liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The piggy-back caval anastomosis technique is widely used in orthotopic liver transplantation although it carries an increased risk of complications, including outflow obstruction and Budd-Chiari syndrome. The aim of this study is to clarify the anatomy and variations of hepatic veins (HVs) draining into the inferior vena cava (IVC), and to classify the surgical techniques of piggy-back liver transplantation (PBLT) based on the anatomy of HVs which can reduce the occurrence of complications.

METHODS

PBLT was performed in 248 consecutive cases at our hospital from January 2004 to August 2011. The anatomy of recipients' HVs was determined when removing the native diseased livers. Both anatomy of HVs and short HVs draining into the IVC were recorded. These data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

We classified anatomic variations of HVs in the 248 livers into five types according to the way of drainage into the IVC: type I (trunk type of left and middle HVs), 142 (57.3%) patients; type II (trunk type of right and middle HVs), 54 (21.8%); type III (trunk type of left, middle and right HVs), 14 (5.6%); type IV (non-trunk type of left, middle and right HVs), of which, type IVa, 16 (6.5%), in the same horizontal plane; type IVb, 18 (7.3%), in different horizontal planes; and type V (segment type), 4 (1.6%). The patients whose HVs anatomy belonged to types I, II and III underwent classical piggy-back liver transplantation. Type IVa patients had classical PBLT via HV venoplasty prior to piggy-back anastomosis, while type IVb patients and type V patients could only have modified PBLT.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that HVs can be classified according to the anatomy of their drainage into the IVC and we can use this classification to choose the best operative approach to PBLT.