What is the prognosis after retransplantation of the liver?

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.

Treatment With Diflunisal in Domino Liver Transplant Recipients With Acquired Amyloid Neuropathy

Objectives: To analyze the efficacy and tolerability of diflunisal for the treatment of acquired amyloid neuropathy in domino liver transplant recipients. Methods: We performed a retrospective longitudinal study of prospectively collected data for all domino liver transplant recipients with acquired amyloid neuropathy who received diflunisal at our hospital. Neurological deterioration was defined as an score increase of ≥2 points from baseline on the Neurological Impairment Scale/Neurological Impairment Scale-Lower Limbs. Results: Twelve patients who had received compassionate use treatment with diflunisal were identified, of whom seven had follow-up data for ≥12 months. Five patients (71.4%) presented with neurological deterioration on the Neurological Impairment Scale after 12 months (p = 0.0382). The main adverse effects were cardiovascular and renal, leading to diflunisal being stopped in five patients and the dose being reduced in two patients. Conclusion: Our study suggests that most domino liver transplant recipients with acquired amyloid neuropathy will develop neurological deterioration by 12 months of treatment with diflunisal. This therapy was also associated with a high incidence of adverse effects and low treatment retention. The low efficacy and low tolerability of diflunisal treatment encourage the search for new therapeutic options.

Differences in Early Immunosuppressive Therapy Among Liver Retransplantation Recipients in a National Cohort

BACKGROUND

There is no unified consensus as to the preferred immunosuppression (IS) strategy following liver retransplantation (reLT).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Recipient, donor, and center characteristics associated with induction use and early maintenance IS regimen were described. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis evaluated induction receipt as a predictor of post-reLT survival.

RESULTS

There were 3483 adult reLT recipients from 2002 to 2018 at 116 centers with 95.6% being performed at the same center as the initial liver transplant. Timing of reLT was associated with induction IS use and the discharge regimen (P < 0.001 for both) but not with regimens at 6- and 12-month post-reLT (P = 0.1 for both). Among late reLTs (>365 d), initial liver disease cause was a more important determinant of maintenance regimen than graft failure cause. Low-reLT volume centers used induction more often for late reLTs (41.1% versus 22.6% high volume; P = 0.002) yet were less likely to wean to calcineurin inhibitors alone in the first year (19.1% versus 38.7% high volume; P = 0.002). Accounting for recipient and donor factors, depleting induction marginally improved post-reLT mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = 0.08), whereas nondepleting induction had no significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several recipient attributes inform early IS decision-making, this does not occur in a uniform manner and center factors also play a role. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of early IS on post-reLT outcomes.

Retransplantation After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Data from the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study

BACKGROUND

The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for primary liver transplantation (LT) may quell concerns about allocating deceased donor organs if the need for retransplantation (re-LT) arises because the primary LT did not draw from the limited organ pool. However, outcomes of re-LT after LDLT are poorly studied. The purpose of this study was to analyze the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) data to report outcomes of re-LT after LDLT, with a focus on long-term survival after re-LT.

METHODS

A retrospective review of A2ALL data collected between 1998 and 2014 was performed. Patients were excluded if they received a deceased donor LT. Demographic data, postoperative outcomes and complications, graft and patient survival, and predictors of re-LT and patient survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 1065 patients who underwent LDLT during the study time period, 110 recipients (10.3%) required re-LT. In multivariable analyses, hepatitis C virus, longer length of stay at LDLT, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary stricture, infection, and disease recurrence were associated with an increased risk of re-LT. Patient survival among re-LT patients was significantly inferior to those who underwent primary transplant only at 1 (86% versus 92%), 5 (64% versus 82%), and 10 years (44% versus 68%).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 10% of A2ALL patients who underwent primary LDLT required re-LT. Compared with patients who underwent primary LT, survival among re-LT recipients was worse at 1, 5, and 10 years after LT, and re-LT was associated with a significantly increased risk of death in multivariable modeling (hazard ratios, 2.29; P < 0.001).

Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Model to Estimate Early Allograft Failure Among Patients Requiring Early Liver Retransplant

Question

Can the individual risk estimation for early allograft failure (EAF) be improved in view of liver retransplant?

Findings

In this multicenter cohort study investigating the association between donor-recipient factors and EAF, a novel Early Allograft Failure Simplified Estimation (EASE) score was developed. The score includes Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, transfused packed red blood cells, and hepatic vessel early thrombosis as well as transaminases, platelet, and bilirubin kinetics as variables on day 10 after transplant. The EASE score outperformed previous model scores, estimating EAF risk with 87% accuracy on day 90 after transplant; EASE was developed on a multicenter Italian database (1609 recipients) and validated on an external UK database (538 recipients).

Meaning

In this study, the EASE score rated the EAF risk (0%-100%) and identified cases at unsustainable risk to be listed for retransplant.

Importance

Expansion of donor acceptance criteria for liver transplant increased the risk for early allograft failure (EAF), and although EAF prediction is pivotal to optimize transplant outcomes, there is no consensus on specific EAF indicators or timing to evaluate EAF. Recently, the Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplantation (L-GrAFT) algorithm, based on aspartate transaminase, bilirubin, platelet, and international normalized ratio kinetics, was developed from a single-center database gathered from 2002 to 2015.

Objective

To develop and validate a simplified comprehensive model estimating at day 10 after liver transplant the EAF risk at day 90 (the Early Allograft Failure Simplified Estimation [EASE] score) and, secondarily, to identify early those patients with unsustainable EAF risk who are suitable for retransplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter cohort study was designed to develop a score capturing a continuum from normal graft function to nonfunction after transplant. Both parenchymal and vascular factors, which provide an indication to list for retransplant, were included among the EAF determinants. The L-GrAFT kinetic approach was adopted and modified with fewer data entries and novel variables. The population included 1609 patients in Italy for the derivation set and 538 patients in the UK for the validation set; all were patients who underwent transplant in 2016 and 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Early allograft failure was defined as graft failure (codified by retransplant or death) for any reason within 90 days after transplant.

Results

At day 90 after transplant, the incidence of EAF was 110 of 1609 patients (6.8%) in the derivation set and 41 of 538 patients (7.6%) in the external validation set. Median (interquartile range) ages were 57 (51-62) years in the derivation data set and 56 (49-62) years in the validation data set. The EASE score was developed through 17 entries derived from 8 variables, including the Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, blood transfusion, early thrombosis of hepatic vessels, and kinetic parameters of transaminases, platelet count, and bilirubin. Donor parameters (age, donation after cardiac death, and machine perfusion) were not associated with EAF risk. Results were adjusted for transplant center volume. In receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, the EASE score outperformed L-GrAFT, Model for Early Allograft Function, Early Allograft Dysfunction, Eurotransplant Donor Risk Index, donor age × Model for End-stage Liver Disease, and Donor Risk Index scores, estimating day 90 EAF in 87% (95% CI, 83%-91%) of cases in both the derivation data set and the internal validation data set. Patients could be stratified in 5 classes, with those in the highest class exhibiting unsustainable EAF risk.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that the developed EASE score reliably estimated EAF risk. Knowledge of contributing factors may help clinicians to mitigate risk factors and guide them through the challenging clinical decision to allocate patients to early liver retransplant. The EASE score may be used in translational research across transplant centers.

Impact of sarcopenia on mortality in patients undergoing liver re-transplantation

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia, which is a loss of skeletal muscle mass, has been reported to increase post-transplant mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing the first liver transplant. Cross-sectional imaging modalities typically determine sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis by measuring core abdominal musculatures. However, there is limited evidence for sarcopenia related outcomes in patients undergoing liver re-transplantation (re-OLT).

AIM

To evaluate the risk of mortality in patients with pre-existing sarcopenia following liver re-OLT.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all adult patients who had undergone a liver re-OLT at the University of Nebraska Medical Center from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2017. We divided patients into sarcopenia and no sarcopenia groups. “TeraRecon AquariusNet 4.4.12.194” software was used to evaluate computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the patients done within one year prior to their re-OLT, to calculate the Psoas muscle area at L3-L4 intervertebral disc. We defined cutoffs for sarcopenia as < 1561 mm² for males and < 1464 mm² for females. The primary outcome was to compare 90 d, one, and 5-year survival rates. We also compared complications after re-OLT, length of stay, and re-admission within 30 d. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Continuous variables were evaluated with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Categorical variables were evaluated with Fisher’s exact tests.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients were included, 32 males: 25 females, median age 50 years. Two patients were excluded due to incomplete information. Overall, 47% (26) of patients who underwent re-OLT had sarcopenia. Females were found to have significantly more sarcopenia than males (73% vs 17%, P < 0.001). Median model for end stage liver disease at re-OLT was 28 in both sarcopenia and no sarcopenia groups. Patients in the no sarcopenia group had a trend of longer median time between the first and second transplant (36.5 mo vs 16.7 mo). Biological markers, outcome parameters, and survival at 90 d, 1 and 5 years, were similar between the two groups. Sarcopenia in re-OLT at our center was noted to be twice as common (47%) as historically reported in patients undergoing primary liver transplantation.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival and outcome parameters were no different in those with and without the evidence of sarcopenia after re-OLT.

Liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases in patients and donors with extended criteria (SECA-II arm D study)

Background

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving palliative chemotherapy have a 5‐year survival rate of approximately 10 per cent. Liver transplantation using strict selection criteria in patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver‐only disease will result in a 5‐year survival rate of 56–83 per cent. The aim of this study was to evaluate survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) after liver transplantation using extended criteria for both patients and donors.

Methods

This was a prospective single‐arm study. Patients with synchronous unresectable CRLM who were not suitable for arms A, B or C of the SEcondary CAncer (SECA) II study who had undergone radical resection of the primary tumour and received chemotherapy were included; they underwent liver transplantation with extended criteria donor grafts. Patients who had resectable pulmonary metastases were eligible for inclusion. The main exclusion criteria were BMI above 30 kg/m² and liver metastases larger than 10 cm. Survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

Ten patients (median age 54 years; 3 women) were included. They had an extensive liver tumour load with a median of 20 (range 1–45) lesions; the median size of the largest lesion was 59 (range 15–94) mm. Eight patients had (y)pN2 disease, six had poorly differentiated or signet ring cell‐differentiated primary tumours, and five had primary tumour in the ascending colon. The median Fong clinical risk score was 3 (range 2–5) and the median Oslo score was 1 (range 1–4). The median plasma carcinoembryonic antigen level was 4·3 (range 2–4346) μg/l. Median disease‐free and overall survival was 4 and 18 months respectively.

Conclusion

Patients with unresectable liver‐only CRLM undergoing liver transplantation with extended patient and donor criteria have relatively short overall survival.

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.

[Frontiers in liver transplantation in indication and techniques]

BACKGROUND

The frontiers in liver transplantation are intrinsically expansions of indications, e.g. hepatocellular carcinoma and (perihilar) cholangiocarcinoma, recipients with more severe concomitant diagnoses or "soft" contraindications and technically demanding reconstruction procedures of vascular structures (for portal vein thrombosis or aorto-hepatic conduits). In addition, an extension of the donor pool with suboptimal donor organs (old donors and steatotic livers) is of interest.

METHODS

This article presents the current situation based on personal experiences in daily practice and an appropriate literature review.

RESULTS

A significant reduction of 1‑year patient survival has been reported in Germany. The percentage of so-called marginal donor organs is inversely proportional to the very low donation rate and parallel to the waiting list mortality. Simultaneously, the proportion of inpatients with multiple organ failure is rising.

CONCLUSION

Results-oriented and controlled liver transplantation currently prohibits making inroads into the previously intrinsic frontiers. As long as the current circumstances do not change, a shift in the intrinsic frontiers of that which is surgically feasible will not be possible. The current situation forces the transplant surgeon to apply a more restrictive indications and organ acceptance policy. With this approach we can try to regain the previously excellent short- and long-term results of a 1‑year survival of 90% and a 20-year survival of 50%.

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.

Prognostic Factors and Outcomes of Patients After Liver Retransplantation

BACKGROUND

Despite great progress and improvement in results of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLTx), 10%-20% of patients still require retransplantation (re-OLTx). The aim of the study was to present long-term results of liver retransplantation and to determine the factors influencing outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 1994 to July 2014, a total of 1461 liver transplantations were performed in the Department of General, Transplant and Liver Surgery of Medical University of Warsaw. There were 92 retransplantations (6.3%), including 40 early re-OLTx (up to 30 days). The most common indication for re-OLTx were vascular complications (41/92, 44.6%). Influence of clinical variables on short- and long-term outcomes was analyzed.

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 30.4% (28/92). One-year, 3-year and 5-year survival for all patients was 59.8%, 56.5% and 54.1%, respectively. The best results were achieved in patients undergoing retransplantation due to chronic rejection and biliary complications, whose 5-year survival rates were 75.0% and 72.9% respectively. There was no difference in long-term survival after early and late retransplantations (60.9% and 49.3%, respectively; P = .158). Multivariable analysis revealed factors associated with longer survival of patients, namely, higher preoperative hemoglobin concentration (P = .001), increased blood transfusions (P = .048), and decreased fresh frozen plasma transfusions (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver retransplantation is a method providing satisfactory outcomes in selected patients. The perioperative period has a major impact on patient outcome.

When Living Donor Liver Allografts Fail: Exploring the Outcomes of Retransplantation Using Deceased Donors

Outcomes of retransplantation after initial living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to better understand the indications, timing, and outcomes of retransplantation after initial LDLT when compared to after initial deceased donor transplantation (DDLT). From 2002 to 2013, 209 retransplant recipients after initial LDLT and 2893 after initial DDLT were identified in Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. Multivariable logistic models evaluated the association between initial transplant type and 1-year mortality. The most frequent reason for early graft failure (≤14 days) in LDLT recipients was vascular thrombosis (63.6%) versus primary graft failure in initial DDLT recipients (59.1%). LDLT recipients were more often acutely and/or critically ill with a greater proportion of Status 1 (42.6% vs. 27.3%; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (52.2% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.001) recipients at the time of retransplantation. There was no difference in adjusted 1-year mortality between retransplant recipients after initial LDLT versus DDLT (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.08). The proportion of recipients who ultimately required retransplantation for a third time was not different between the two groups (4.8%). Retransplantation outcomes after LDLT are not different from other retransplant procedures, despite recipients having greater acuity of illness and different indications.

Liver Retransplantation in Patients With HIV-1 Infection: An International Multicenter Cohort Study

Liver retransplantation is performed in HIV-infected patients, although its outcome is not well known. In an international cohort study (eight countries), 37 (6%; 32 coinfected with hepatitis C virus [HCV] and five with hepatitis B virus [HBV]) of 600 HIV-infected patients who had undergone liver transplant were retransplanted. The main indications for retransplantation were vascular complications (35%), primary graft nonfunction (22%), rejection (19%), and HCV recurrence (13%). Overall, 19 patients (51%) died after retransplantation. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 56%, 51%, and 51%, respectively. Among patients with HCV coinfection, HCV RNA replication status at retransplantation was the only significant prognostic factor. Patients with undetectable versus detectable HCV RNA had a survival probability of 80% versus 39% at 1 year and 80% versus 30% at 3 and 5 years (p = 0.025). Recurrence of hepatitis C was the main cause of death in the latter. Patients with HBV coinfection had survival of 80% at 1, 3, and 5 years after retransplantation. HIV infection was adequately controlled with antiretroviral therapy. In conclusion, liver retransplantation is an acceptable option for HIV-infected patients with HBV or HCV coinfection but undetectable HCV RNA. Retransplantation in patients with HCV replication should be reassessed prospectively in the era of new direct antiviral agents.

Liver retransplantation in patients with acquired familial amyloid polyneuropathy: a Portuguese center experience

In 1995 Furtado et al performed the first domino transplantation using a donor liver with familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP), thereby increasing the pool of donors. Our experience showed that the onset of FAP symptoms occurs earlier in some patients. Patients with FAP acquired by transplantation are candidates for liver retransplantation to minimize the progression of symptoms. Liver retransplantation is considered to be a high-risk procedure and has lower survival compared with the first transplantation. We evaluated the risk of liver retransplantation in patients with acquired FAP. We did a retrospective analysis of these patients based on the records of perioperative data. From 1995 to 2004 we carried out 81 domino transplantations, of which 10 were submitted to liver retransplantation because of acquired FAP. The better outcomes in this group lead us to think that the liver retransplantation in patients with acquired FAP is not associated with the same risks of liver retransplantation in candidates with graft failure.

Evaluation of operative risk in de novo familial amyloid polyneuropathy retransplantation

Familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) is the most common hereditary amyloidosis, characterized by progressive peripheral sensory and motor neuropathy. The livers of patients with FAP are used in domino liver transplantation in selected cases to increase the number of grafts available. In our department 10 patients underwent liver retransplantation (ReLTx) in the absence of liver dysfunction by de novo FAP after domino liver transplantation. Our aim was to compare the differences in the consumption of blood products and intraoperative hemodynamic support among patients with FAP undergoing liver transplantation (LTx) and patients with de novo FAP undergoing ReLTx in the same time frame. The anesthetic records of all patients who underwent LTx for FAP and ReLTx for de novo FAP were analyzed, from January 2009 to May 2014. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 patients with FAP, and group 2 patients with de novo FAP. Statistical differences in the value of preoperative creatinine were found. Hemoglobin levels, preoperative international normalized ratio (INR), use of blood products, aminergic support, and surgical time showed no statistical difference. Major bleeding rates would be expected in patients undergoing ReLTx. Changes in renal function, chronic immunosuppressive therapy, and age may contribute to the increase in intraoperative complications. We did not find statistically significant differences, leading us to the conclusion that de novo FAP does not seem to be a predictor of perioperative risk.

Hepatic retransplant: what have we learned?

Hepatic retransplant accounts for 5% to 15% of liver transplants in most series and is associated with significantly increased hospital costs and inferior patient survival when compared with primary liver transplant. Early retransplants are usually due to primary graft nonfunction or vascular thrombosis, whereas later retransplants are most commonly necessitated by chronic rejection or recurrent primary liver disease. Hepatic retransplant remains the sole option for survival in many patients facing allograft failure after liver transplant. With improved techniques to match retransplant candidates with appropriate donor grafts, it is hoped that the outcomes of retransplant will continue to improve in future.

Surgical site infections after liver retransplantation: incidence and risk factors

Surgical site infections (SSIs) after liver transplantation (LT) are associated with an increased risk of graft loss and death. The incidence of SSIs after LT and their risk factors have been determined for first LT but not for second LT. The importance of reporting the incidence of SSIs risk-stratified by first LT versus second LT is not known. All patients undergoing second LT at a single institution between 2003 and 2011 (n = 152) were reviewed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the cumulative SSI incidence. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate associations of potential risk factors with SSIs after second LT. Thirty-one patients developed SSIs (6 superficial SSIs, 1 deep SSI, and 24 organ/space SSIs). The cumulative incidence of SSIs 30 days after LT was 20.8% (95% CI = 14%-27%), which was slightly but not significantly higher than the previously reported incidence of SSIs after first LT at our institution between 2003 and 2008 (16%, RR = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.90-1.93, P = .16). Units of transfused red blood cells [RR (doubling) = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.02-1.86, P = .04] and hepaticojejunostomy (RR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.05-4.72, P = .04) were the only factors associated with SSIs after second LT in single-variable analysis. The associations weakened in a multivariate analysis (P = .07 and P = .07, respectively), potentially because of the correlation of red blood cell transfusions and hepaticojejunostomy (P = .08). In conclusion, the incidence of SSIs after second LT was slightly higher but not significantly different than the published incidence of SSIs (16%) after first LT at the same institution. Significant independent risk factors for SSIs after second LT were not identified. Risk stratification for retransplantation may not be necessary when the incidence of SSIs after LT is being reported.

Liver transplantation: past, present and future

The first human liver transplant operation was performed by Thomas Starzl in 1963. The next two decades were marked by difficulties with donor organ quality, recipient selection, operative and perioperative management, immunosuppression and infectious complications. Advances in each of these areas transformed liver transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard treatment for end-stage liver disease and certain cancers. From the handful of pioneering programmes, liver transplantation has expanded to hundreds of programmes in >80 countries. 1-year patient survival rates have exceeded 80% and outcomes continue to improve. This success has created obstacles. Ongoing challenges of liver transplantation include those concerning donor organ shortages, recipients with more advanced disease at transplant, growing need for retransplantation, toxicities and adverse effects associated with long-term immunosuppression, obesity and NASH epidemics, HCV recurrence and the still inscrutable biology of hepatocellular carcinoma. This Perspectives summarizes this transformation over time and details some of the challenges ahead.