Weaning of Veno-venous Bypass in Liver Transplantation: A Single Center Experience

Venovenous bypass in adult liver transplant recipients: A single-center observational case series

BACKGROUND

Very little information is currently available on the use and outcomes of venovenous bypass (VVB) in liver transplantation (LT) in adults in Australia. In this study, we explored the indications, intraoperative course, and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent VVB in a high-volume LT unit.

METHODS

The study was a single-center, retrospective observational case series of adult patients who underwent VVB during LT at Austin Health in Melbourne, Australia between March 2008 and March 2022. Information on baseline preoperative status and intraoperative variables, including specific VVB characteristics as well as postoperative and VVB-related complications was collected. The lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays as well as intraoperative and in-hospital mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 900 LTs performed at this center during the aforementioned 14-year period, 27 (3%) included a VVB procedure. VVB was performed electively in 16 of these 27 patients (59.3%) and as a rescue technique to control massive bleeding in the other 11 (40.1%). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of those who underwent VVB procedures was 48 (39-55) years; the median age was 56 (47-62) years in the non-VVB group (p<0.0001). The median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were similar between the two patient groups. Complete blood data was available for 622 non-VVB patients. Twenty-six VVB (96.3%) and 603 non-VVB (96.9%) patients required intraoperative blood transfusions. The median (IQR) number of units of packed red blood cells transfused was 7 (4.8-12.5) units in the VVB group compared to 3.0 units (1.0-6.0) in the non-VVB group (p<0.0001). Inpatient mortality was 18.5% and 1.1% for the VVB and non-VVB groups, respectively (p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay or incidence of acute kidney injury, primary graft dysfunction, or long-term graft failure between the two groups. Patients in the VVB group experienced a higher rate of postoperative non-anastomotic biliary stricture compared to patients in the non-VVB group (33% and 7.9%, respectively; p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

VVB continues to play a vital role in LT. This case series highlights the heightened risk of major complications linked to VVB. However, the global transition to selective use of VVB underscores the urgent need for collaborative multi-center studies designed to address outstanding questions and parameters related to the safe implementation of this procedure.

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).

Application of various surgical techniques in liver transplantation: a retrospective study

Background

Surgical techniques of liver transplantation have continually evolved and have been modified. We retrospectively analyzed a single-center case series and compared the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Methods

Six-hundred and seventy-four recipients’ perioperative data were assessed and analyzed stratified by different surgical technics [modified classic (MC), modified piggyback (MPB) and classic piggyback (CPB)].

Results

MELD score and Child-Pugh scores was significantly higher in CPB groups (P=0.008 and 0.003, respectively). Anhepatic time in MPB group was longer than those in CPB group (P<0.05). The operation duration in MPB group was significantly longer than those in MC group and CPB group (P=0.003). Three patients had outflow obstruction (P=0.035). The overall survival in MPB group were better than those in MC group and CPB group in general comparison (P<0.001). In patients with preoperative creatine >120 µmol/L, the overall survival in MC group was worst (P<0.001). In patients with a high MELD score (>24), the overall survival in MPB group tended to be the best (P<0.001).

Conclusions

The advantages and disadvantages are different for these three surgical techniques. A reasonable operation technique should be adopted considering the patient's unique condition to ensure the stability of hemodynamics.