Prognostic Factors and Outcomes of Patients After Liver Retransplantation

LIVER RETRANSPLANTATION: PROGNOSTIC SCORES AND RESULTS IN THE STATE OF PARANÁ

BACKGROUND

Hepatic retransplantation is associated with higher morbidity and mortality when compared to primary transplantation. Given the scarcity of organs and the need for efficient allocation, evaluating parameters that can predict post-retransplant survival is crucial.

AIMS

This study aimed to analyze prognostic scores and outcomes of hepatic retransplantation.

METHODS

Data on primary transplants and retransplants carried out in the state of Paraná in 2019 and 2020 were analyzed. The two groups were compared based on 30-day survival and the main prognostic scores of the donor and recipient, namely Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-albumin (MELD-a), Donor MELD (D-MELD), Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (SOFT), Preallocation Score to Predict Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (P-SOFT), and Balance of Risk (BAR).

RESULTS

A total of 425 primary transplants and 30 retransplants were included in the study. The main etiology of hepatopathy in primary transplantation was ethylism (n=140; 31.0%), and the main reasons for retransplantation were primary graft dysfunction (n=10; 33.3%) and hepatic artery thrombosis (n=8; 26.2%). The 30-day survival rate was higher in primary transplants than in retransplants (80.5% vs. 36.7%, p=0.001). Prognostic scores were higher in retransplants than in primary transplants: MELD 30.6 vs. 20.7 (p=0.001); MELD-a 31.5 vs. 23.5 (p=0.001); D-MELD 1234.4 vs. 834.0 (p=0.034); SOFT 22.3 vs. 8.2 (p=0.001); P-SOFT 22.2 vs. 7.8 (p=0.001); and BAR 15.6 vs. 8.3 (p=0.001). No difference was found in terms of Donor Risk Index (DRI).

CONCLUSIONS

Retransplants exhibited lower survival rates at 30 days, as predicted by prognostic scores, but unrelated to the donor's condition.

Association between hospital liver transplantation volume and mortality after liver re-transplantation

BACKGROUND

The relationship between institutional liver transplantation (LT) case volume and clinical outcomes after liver re-transplantation is yet to be determined.

METHODS

Patients who underwent liver re-transplantation between 2007 and 2016 were selected from the Korean National Healthcare Insurance Service database. Liver transplant centers were categorized to either high-volume centers (≥ 64 LTs/year) or low-volume centers (< 64 LTs/year) according to the annual LT case volume. In-hospital and long-term mortality after liver re-transplantation were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 258 liver re-transplantations were performed during the study period: 175 liver re-transplantations were performed in 3 high-volume centers and 83 were performed in 21 low-volume centers. In-hospital mortality after liver re-transplantation in high and low-volume centers were 25% and 36% (P = 0.069), respectively. Adjusted in-hospital mortality was not different between low and high-volume centers. Adjusted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in low-volume centers (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.05-4.37, P = 0.037) compared to high-volume centers. Long-term survival for up to 9 years was also superior in high-volume centers (P = 0.005). Other risk factors of in-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality included female sex and higher Elixhauser comorbidity index.

CONCLUSION

Centers with higher case volume (≥ 64 LTs/year) showed lower in-hospital and overall mortality after liver re-transplantation compared to low-volume centers.

Intraoperative Dialysis During Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver transplantation (LT) is a technically complex surgical procedure associated with a major risk of hemodynamic instability and metabolic derangement, especially in patients with coexisting renal dysfunction. Some centers have applied intraoperative renal replacement therapy (ioRRT) to support patients with preoperative renal failure and prevent critical complications. Although there is a strong theoretical rationale for this treatment, there remains a paucity of definite data demonstrating its benefits.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of all adult patients undergoing intraoperative dialysis in our center from January 2010 till December 2016.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 88 patients with a mean MELD score of 31.4. Six patients underwent simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation. Forty-four (50%) recipients were admitted to the intensive care unit before transplantation, and 19 (21.6%) needed mechanical ventilation. Twenty-eight (31.8%) of the procedures were retransplantations, and 40 (45.4%) patients had been undergoing renal replacement therapy before LT. The mean preoperative serum creatinine was 2.82 ± 1.13 mg/dL. The majority of patients (54.5%) was operated on using the veno-venous bypass technique. The mean arterial blood pH and potassium levels after reperfusion were 7.2 ± 0.12 and 4.04 ± 0.95 mmol/L, respectively. Postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) occurred in 11 (13.9%) patients in whom dialysis started at least 15 minutes before reperfusion. Dialysis circuit clotting occurred in 9.1% of cases. There were no other adverse events of ioRRT.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggests that intraoperative dialysis in severely ill patients with a high MELD score is safe and effective. Lower than expected PRS occurrence needs to be confirmed in a study with a control group.

Adults transplanted as children as retransplant candidates: Analysis of outcomes support optimism in a population mislabeled as high risk

Adult liver transplant programs have heretofore been hesitant to perform liver retransplantation in adult patients who underwent primary liver transplantation as a child (P_A). Areas of concern include: (a) potential disruption in care when transferring from a pediatric to an adult transplant center; (b) generally inferior outcomes of retransplantation; (c) reputation of young adults for non-adherence to post-transplant regimen; and (d) potential higher work effort for equivalent outcomes. To examine these concerns, we reviewed data on all US liver adult retransplants from 10/01/1987 to 9/30/2017. We propensity matched the P_A patients to patients who received both primary and retransplantation as adults (A_A), with ≥550 days between transplants. A mixed Cox proportional hazards model with program size and time period of transplantation as random variables revealed that retransplantation of P_A patients produced no significantly different graft survival or patient survival rates than retransplantation of the matched A_A patients. Therefore, inferior rates of liver retransplantation in these patients and concerns about continuity of care in changing transplant programs are not as believed in the wider liver transplant community. In conclusion, liver transplant centers should be optimistic about retransplanting adults who received their primary transplants as children.

Prognostic Factors in Pediatric Early Liver Retransplantation

The most common indications for early liver retransplantation (eRe-LT) are vascular complications and primary nonfunction (PNF). These patients are usually in a critical clinical condition that can affect their chances of survival. In fact, the survival of these patients is usually lower compared with the patients undergoing a first transplant. To the best of our knowledge, no specific series of pediatric patients undergoing eRe-LT has been published to date. Therefore, the aim of this study is to report the results of eRe-LT and to analyze factors potentially related to success or failure. Our work is of a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent eRe-LT at the Juan P. Garrahan Pediatric Hospital of Buenos Aires, Argentina, between May 1995 and December 2018 (n = 60). Re-LT was considered early when performed ≤30 days after the previous LT. A total of 40 (66.7%) patients were enrolled due to vascular causes and 20 (33.3%) were enrolled because of PNF. Of all the relisted patients, 36 underwent eRe-LT, 14 died on the waiting list, and 10 recovered without eRe-LT. A total of 23 (63.9%) patients died after eRe-LT, most of them due to infection-related complications. Survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 42.4% and 33.9%, respectively. On univariate logistic regression analysis, Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD)/Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, transplant era, and advanced life support at eRe-LT were found to be related to 60-day mortality. However, on multivariate analysis, era (odds ratio [OR], 9.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-72.35; P = 0.033) and PELD/MELD scores (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1-1.14; P = 0.036) were significantly associated with 60-day patient mortality. This study found that the level of acuity before retransplant, measured by the requirement of advanced life support and the PELD/MELD score at eRe-LT, was significantly associated with the chances of post-eRe-LT patient survival.

Complex liver retransplantation to treat graft loss due to long-term biliary tract complication after liver transplantation: A case report

BACKGROUND

Loss of graft function after liver transplantation (LT) inevitably requires liver retransplant. Retransplantation of the liver (ReLT) remains controversial because of inferior outcomes compared with the primary orthotopic LT (OLT). Meanwhile, if accompanied by vascular complications such as arterial and portal vein (PV) stenosis or thrombosis, it will increase difficulties of surgery. We hereby introduce our center's experience in ReLT through a complicated case of ReLT.

CASE SUMMARY

We report a patient who suffered from hepatitis B-associated cirrhosis and underwent LT in December 2012. Early postoperative recovery was uneventful. Four months after LT, the patient’s bilirubin increased significantly and he was diagnosed with an ischemic-type biliary lesion caused by hepatic artery occlusion. The patient underwent percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage and repeatedly replaced intrahepatic biliary drainage tube regularly for 5 years. The patient developed progressive deterioration of liver function and underwent liver re-transplant in January 2019. The operation was performed in a classic OLT manner without venous bypass. Both the hepatic artery and PV were occluded and could not be used for anastomosis. The donor PV was anastomosed with the recipient’s left renal vein. The donor hepatic artery was connected to the recipient’s abdominal aorta. The bile duct reconstruction was performed in an end-to-end manner. The postoperative process was very uneventful and the patient was discharged 1 mo after retransplantation.

CONCLUSION

With the development of surgical techniques, portal thrombosis and arterial occlusion are no longer contraindications for ReLT.

Liver retransplantation in adult recipients: analysis of a 38-year experience in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation (re-LT) accounts for up to 22% after primary liver transplantation (LT), and using donor livers for retransplantation can only be justified by successful outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 2,387 adult recipients with 2,778 LT, between 1979 and 2017, were analyzed to determine risk factors and outcome of re-LT in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Of 2,778 LT, 336 (12.1%) were first, 43 (1.5%) were second, and 12 (0.5%) were third or fourth re-LT. The 5-year patient survival for primary LT, and first, second, and third or fourth re-LT were 74.0%, 70.8%, 63.3%, and 57.1%, respectively (P = 0.10). Recipient age (≤60 years) (OR 1.96, P < 0.001), era (1979-2006) (OR 1.56, P = 0.003), donor after circulatory death (DCD) (OR 1.96, P < 0.001), and cold ischemia time (CIT) (>9 h) (OR 1.42, P = 0.007) were significant risk factors for retransplantation after primary LT.

CONCLUSIONS

Recipient age, era, DCD, and prolonged CIT were identified as parameters for retransplantation. The outcome after the first re-LT was good, and comparable to those of primary transplants. Survival after multiple re-LT was not significantly different from the first retransplant group, legitimizing third and fourth re-LT to well-selected patients.

Intensive Care Unit Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Patients Undergoing Orthotopic Liver Transplants Recipients: A Prospective, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Liver transplant recipients continue to have high perioperative resource utilization and prolonged length of stay despite improvements in perioperative care. Enhanced recovery pathways have been shown in other surgical populations to produce reductions in hospital resource utilization.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study was performed to examine the effect of an enhanced recovery pathway for postoperative care after liver transplantation. Outcomes from patients undergoing liver transplantation from November 1, 2013, to October 31, 2014, managed by the pathway were compared to transplant recipients from the year before pathway implementation. Multivariable regression analysis was used to assess the association of the clinical pathway on clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The intervention and control groups included 141 and 106 patients, respectively. There were no demographic differences between the control and intervention group including no differences between the length of surgery and cold ischemic time. Median intensive care unit length of stay was reduced from 4.4 to 2.6 days (P < .001). The intervention group had a higher likelihood of earlier discharge (hazard ratio [95% CI], 2.01 [1.55-2.62]; P < .001), and a 69% and 65% lower odds of receiving a plasma (P < .001) or packed red blood cell (P < .001) transfusion. There was no significant effect on hospital mortality (P = .40), intensive care unit readmission rates (P = .75), or postoperative infections (urinary traction infections: P = .09; pneumonia: P = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

An enhanced recovery pathway focused on milestone-based elements of intensive care unit management and predetermined management triggers including hemodynamic goals, fluid therapy, perioperative antibiotics, glycemic control, and standardized transfusion triggers led to reductions in intensive care unit length of stay without an increase in perioperative complications.

Poor Survival After Retransplantation in NASH Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis is a common indication for liver transplantation (LT) in the United States. There is a paucity of data on retransplantation (re-LT) in those who were initially transplanted for NASH.

METHODS

We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing data sets from 2002 to 2016 to analyze the outcomes of adults with NASH (n = 128) and compared them with groups that received re-LT for cryptogenic cirrhosis (n = 189), alcoholic cirrhosis (n = 300) or autoimmune hepatitis cirrhosis (n = 118) after excluding multiple-organ re-LT and individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma. We estimated survival probabilities using a Kaplan-Meier estimator, and a relative risk of patient and graft mortality using proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

The NASH group was older and had a higher prevalence of obesity, type II diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, portal vein thrombosis, and poor performance status. The median interval between the first and the second LT was shorter in the NASH group (27 days). The graft and patient 5-year survival rates were lower for the NASH group after re-LT compared with the other 3 groups. After adjusting for demographic and disease complication factors, the factors that increased a risk of patient or graft failure were a poor performance status (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 1.19-2.26), Donor Risk Index (HR, 1.51; 1.08-2.12), and a high Model for End-stage Liver Disease score (HR, 1.02; 1.00-1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the comparable outcomes reported for initial LT among the various etiologies, the outcome of re-LT is significantly worse for NASH cirrhosis.