Validation and refinement of survival models for liver retransplantation

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

Liver retransplantation: Timing is equally important

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To evaluate the effect of transplantation interval on patient and graft survival in liver retransplantation (reLT) using meta-analytical techniques.

METHODS

Literature search was undertaken until January 2022 to identify comparative studies evaluating patient survival rates, graft survival rates, and the interval time. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated with either the fixed or random effect model.

RESULTS

The 12 articles were included in this meta-analysis. The late reLT survival rate is better than the early reLT in the 30 days group, and there is no statistical significance in other time groups. The patient survival was significantly higher in late reLT than early reLT at 1 and 5 years (respectively: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.88]). The graft survival was significantly higher in late reLT than early reLT at 1 year (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.89]). The risk of death after reLT in early group was 1.43 times higher than that in late group (HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.21-1.71]).

CONCLUSIONS

Late reLT had significantly better survival rates than early reLT, and the transplantation interval was more reasonable to divide the early or late groups by 30 days.

Modern Outcomes After Liver Retransplantation: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

The need for liver retransplantation (reLT) has increased proportionally with greater numbers of liver transplants (LTs) performed, use of marginal donors, degree of recipient preoperative liver dysfunction, and longer survival after LT. However, outcomes following reLT have been historically regarded as poor.

METHODS

To evaluate reLT in modern recipients, we retrospectively examined our single-center experience. Analysis included 1268 patients undergoing single LT and 68 patients undergoing reLT from January 2008 to December 2021.

RESULTS

Pre-LT mechanical ventilation, body mass index at LT, donor-recipient ABO incompatibility, early acute rejection, and length of hospitalization were associated with increased risk of needing reLT following index transplant. Overall and graft survival outcomes in the reLT cohort were equivalent to those after single LT. Mortality after reLT was associated with Kidney Donor Profile Index, national organ sharing at reLT, and LT donor death by anoxia and blood urea nitrogen levels. Survival after reLT was independent of the interval between initial LT and reLT, intraoperative packed red blood cell use, cold ischemia time, and preoperative mechanical ventilation, all previously linked to worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that reLT is currently a safer option for patients with liver graft failure, with comparable outcomes to primary LT.

Factors affecting survival after liver retransplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Liver retransplantation (reLT) has historically had inferior survival relative to primary liver transplant (LT). To improve outcomes after reLT, researchers have identified factors predicting overall (OS) and/or graft survival (GS) after reLT. This systematic review and random effects meta-analysis sought to summarize this literature to elucidate the strongest independent predictors of post-reLT.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify manuscripts reporting factors affecting survival in multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. Papers with overlapping cohorts were excluded.

Results

All 25 included studies were retrospective, and 15 (60%) were single-center studies. Patients on pre-transplant ventilation (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.56-6.20; p = 0.001) and with high serum creatinine (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.87; p = 0.002) had the highest mortality risk after reLT. Recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, donor age, and cold ischemia time >12 h also conferred a significant risk of post-reLT death (all p < 0.05). Factors affecting GS included donor age and retransplant interval (the time between LT and reLT; both p < 0.05). OS is significantly higher when the retransplant interval is ≤7 days relative to 8-30 days (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis was complicated by papers utilizing non-standardized cut-off values to group variables, which made between-study comparisons difficult. However, it did identify 7 variables that significantly impact survival after reLT, which could stimulate future research into improving post-reLT outcomes.

Emergency, ABO-Incompatible Living Donor Liver Re-Transplantation for Graft Failure Complicated by Pneumonia-Associated Sepsis

Although liver re-transplantation is the only therapeutic option for acute and chronic graft failure, few studies have addressed the use of ABO-incompatible living donors in the emergency setting. Here, based on our experience, we report a successful case of emergency, ABO-incompatible, adult-to-adult, living donor liver re-transplantation (LDLT) for late graft failure from chronic rejection complicated by pneumonia-related sepsis. A fifty-five-year-old man had undergone LDLT for hepatocellular carcinoma accompanied by hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis in 30 September 2013. The voluntary donor was his 56-year-old wife, who was also a carrier of HCV. The donor and recipient blood types were the same: O and Rh positive. She underwent a right hepatectomy and was discharged on postoperative day (POD) seven. The patient was also discharged without complications on POD eleven and was followed up with on an outpatient basis. Abdominal distension and jaundice were developed at 6 months after LDLT, when the serum total bilirubin level was 2.7 mg/dL. The serum total bilirubin levels increased rapidly to 22.9 mg/dL over the next 4 months. Chronic rejection was diagnosed via liver biopsy. On 3 October 2014, he developed pneumonia-related sepsis and showed the progressive deterioration of liver function. Liver re-transplantation using the right liver from his ABO-incompatible, 20-year-old nephew was performed as an emergency in 15 October 2014. The donor blood type was A and Rh positive. The resection of the failed graft and the implantation of a new graft was performed by the intragraft dissection technique to re-use previously transplanted graft vessels in order to cope with severe adhesions. The recipient went through a gradual recovery process and was finally discharged on POD 50 with normal liver function, while the donor had an uneventful recovery and was discharged on POD 7. Biloma due to bile leak was detected three months after re-transplantation and was cured by percutaneous interventional procedures. Since then, the postoperative course has been event-free at regular outpatient follow-ups. The patient has so far had normal laboratory findings and no signs of complications. It has been 98 months since the re-transplantation, and the recipient and two donors are still in good condition with normal liver function, having complete satisfaction with the results obtained from this re-transplantation. In conclusion, long-term, satisfactory outcomes can be achieved in emergency, ABO-incompatible, adult-to-adult, living donor liver re-transplantation for graft failure complicated by pneumonia-related sepsis in selected patients.

Outcomes of Adult Liver Retransplantation: A Canadian National Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation remains as the only treatment for graft failure. This investigation aims to assess the incidence, post-transplant outcomes, and risk factors in liver retransplantation recipients in Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Canadian Organ Replacement Register was used to obtain and analyse data on all adult liver retransplant recipients, matched donors, transplant-specific variables, and post-transplant outcomes from January 2000 to December 2018.

RESULTS

377 (6.5%) patients underwent liver retransplantation. Autoimmune liver disease and hepatitis C virus (HCV) were the most common underlying diagnoses. Graft failure was 7.9% and 12.5%, and overall survival was 77.1% and 65.6% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. In contrast to recipients receiving their first graft transplant, the retransplantation group had a significantly higher incidence of graft failure (p < 0.001) and lower overall survival (p < 0.001). The graft failure and patient survival rates were comparable between second transplant and repeat retransplant recipients. Furthermore, there were no differences in graft failure and patient survival when stratified according to time to retransplantation. Recipient and donor age (HR = 1.12, p=0.011; HR = 1.09, p=0.008), recipient HCV status (HR = 1.81, p=0.014), and donor cytomegalovirus status (HR = 4.10, p=0.006) were predictors of patient mortality.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of liver retransplantation demonstrates that this is a safe treatment for early and late graft failure. Furthermore, even in patients requiring more than two grafts, similar outcomes to initial retransplantation can be achieved with careful selection.

The Liver Retransplantation Risk Score: a prognostic model for survival after adult liver retransplantation

High‐risk combinations of recipient and graft characteristics are poorly defined for liver retransplantation (reLT) in the current era. We aimed to develop a risk model for survival after reLT using data from the European Liver Transplantation Registry, followed by internal and external validation. From 2006 to 2016, 85 067 liver transplants were recorded, including 5581 reLTs (6.6%). The final model included seven predictors of graft survival: recipient age, model for end‐stage liver disease score, indication for reLT, recipient hospitalization, time between primary liver transplantation and reLT, donor age, and cold ischemia time. By assigning points to each variable in proportion to their hazard ratio, a simplified risk score was created ranging 0–10. Low‐risk (0–3), medium‐risk (4–5), and high‐risk (6–10) groups were identified with significantly different 5‐year survival rates ranging 56.9% (95% CI 52.8–60.7%), 46.3% (95% CI 41.1–51.4%), and 32.1% (95% CI 23.5–41.0%), respectively (P < 0.001). External validation showed that the expected survival rates were closely aligned with the observed mortality probabilities. The Retransplantation Risk Score identifies high‐risk combinations of recipient‐ and graft‐related factors prognostic for long‐term graft survival after reLT. This tool may serve as a guidance for clinical decision‐making on liver acceptance for reLT.

Retransplantation outcomes for hepatitis C in the United States before and after direct-acting antiviral introduction

The success of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy has led to near-universal cure for patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and improved post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. We investigated the trends and outcomes of retransplantation in HCV and non-HCV patients before and after the introduction of DAA. Adult patients who underwent re-LT were identified in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database. Multiorgan transplants and patients with >2 total LTs were excluded. Two eras were defined: pre-DAA (2009-2012) and post-DAA (2014-2017). A total of 2112 re-LT patients were eligible (HCV: n = 499 pre-DAA and n = 322 post-DAA; non-HCV: n = 547 pre-DAA and n = 744 post-DAA). HCV patients had both improved graft and patient survival after re-LT in the post-DAA era. One-year graft survival was 69.8% pre-DAA and 83.8% post-DAA (P < .001). One-year patient survival was 73.1% pre-DAA and 86.2% post-DAA (P < .001). Graft and patient survival was similar between eras for non-HCV patients. When adjusted, the post-DAA era represented an independent positive predictive factor for graft and patient survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; P = .005, and HR: 0.65; P = .004) only in HCV patients. The positive post-DAA era effect was observed only in HCV patients with first graft loss due to disease recurrence (HR: 0.31; P = .002, HR 0.32; P = .003, respectively). Among HCV patients, receiving a re-LT in the post-DAA era was associated with improved patient and graft survival.

Is Liver Retransplantation Justified in the Current Era?

INTRODUCTION

Liver retransplantation (LRT) is a controversial indication. Our aim was to evaluate the rate of LRT at our institution, and to analyze its indications and short- and long-term results.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of a prospectively collected database, including 1645 LT from 1984 to 2018. Results have been analyzed depending on type of LRT (early vs late), study period and indications.

RESULTS

We performed 150 LRT in 140 patients. The LRT rate was 9%. Of these, 45 LRT were early (30%), and the other 70% were late LRT. The main indications were: ischemic cholangitis (27%), arterial thrombosis (19%), primary non-function (15%), and HCV recurrence (15%). Mean surgery duration (395 vs. 270 min; P = .001), cold ischemia time (435 vs. 390 min; P = .005) and transfused units required (8 vs. 5 RBC; P = .034) were higher in cases of late LRT. Postoperative mortality (10 vs. 20%; P = .01) was better in cases of late LRT. One- and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 71% and 58%, respectively, which were significantly better during the last decade (80% and 64%). Five-year actuarial survival for ischemic cholangitis is better than other indications, such as recurrence of HCV (78 vs. 51%; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver retransplantation is complex and associated with high morbidity and mortality. However, indications and long-term results have improved during recent years. Therefore, LRT is justified.

Ischemic-type biliary lesions: A leading indication of liver retransplantation with excellent results

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation (RLT) is the only life-saving treatment option for patients with a failing graft, but it remains a major challenge because of inferior outcomes and technical difficulties.

METHODS

This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of and risk factors for adult RLT in a single center, focusing on the etiology of graft failure. Between 1987 and 2011, 1592 liver transplants (LTs) and 143 RLTs (9%) were performed at our institution.

RESULTS

The 1-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates after RLT were 60%, 52% and 39%, and the graft survival rates were 55%, 46% and 32%. The 90-day mortality rate was 32%, mainly due to septic complications (45% of deaths). Ischemic-type biliary lesions (ITBL) were the leading indication for RLT (23%), and patient survival was significantly better in patients retransplanted for ITBL than for any other indication (P<0.02). Indications other than ITBL (P=0.015), the transfusion of more than 7 units (P=0.006) and preoperative dialysis (P=0.005) were the three parameters associated with poor survival after RLT.

CONCLUSION

Patients with ITBL benefit the most from elective RLT.

VI consensus document by the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society

The goal of the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society (La Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático) is to promote and create consensus documents about current topics in liver transplantation with a multidisciplinary approach. To this end, on October 20, 2016, the 6th Consensus Document Meeting was held, with the participation of experts from the 24 authorized Spanish liver transplantation programs. This Edition discusses the following subjects, whose summary is offered below: 1) limits of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation; 2) limits of elective liver re-transplantation; and 3) liver transplantation after resection and hepatocellular carcinoma with factors for a poor prognosis. The consensus conclusions for each of these topics is provided below.

VI consensus document by the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society

The goal of the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society (La Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático) is to promote and create consensus documents about current topics in liver transplantation with a multidisciplinary approach. To this end, on October 20, 2016, the 6th Consensus Document Meeting was held, with the participation of experts from the 24 authorized Spanish liver transplantation programs. This Edition discusses the following subjects, whose summary is offered below: 1) limits of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation; 2) limits of elective liver re-transplantation; and 3) liver transplantation after resection and hepatocellular carcinoma with factors for a poor prognosis. The consensus conclusions for each of these topics is provided below.

Impact of comorbidity on waiting list and post-transplant outcomes in patients undergoing liver retransplantation

AIM

To determine the impact of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) on waiting list (WL) and post liver retransplantation (LRT) survival.

METHODS

Comparative study of all adult patients assessed for primary liver transplant (PLT) (n = 1090) and patients assessed for LRT (n = 150), 2000-2007 at our centre. Demographic, clinical and laboratory variables were recorded.

RESULTS

Median age for all patients was 53 years and 66% were men. Median model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score was 15. Median follow-up was 7-years. For retransplant patients, 84 (56%) had ≥ 1 comorbidity. The most common comorbidity was renal impairment in 66 (44.3%). WL mortality was higher in patients with ≥ 1 comorbidity (76% vs 53%, P = 0.044). CCI (OR = 2.688, 95%CI: 1.222-5.912, P = 0.014) was independently associated with WL mortality. Patients with MELD score ≥ 18 had inferior WL survival (Log-Rank 6.469, P = 0.011). On multivariate analysis, CCI (OR = 2.823, 95%CI: 1.563-5101, P = 0.001), MELD score ≥ 18 (OR 2.506, 95%CI: 1.044-6.018, P = 0.04), and requirement for organ support prior to LRT (P < 0.05) were associated with reduced post-LRT survival. Donor/graft parameters were not associated with survival (P = NS). Post-LRT mortality progressively increased according to the number of transplanted grafts (Log-Rank 18.455, P < 0.001). Post-LRT patient survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years were significantly inferior to those of PLT at 88% vs 73%, P < 0.001, 81% vs 71%, P = 0.018 and 69% vs 55%, P = 0.006, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Comorbidity increases WL and post-LRT mortality. Patients with MELD ≥ 18 have increased WL mortality. Patients with comorbidity or MELD ≥ 18 may benefit from earlier LRT. LRT for ≥ 3 grafts may not represent appropriate use of donated grafts.

Outcomes of liver retransplantation in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis

Liver retransplantation in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has not been well studied. The aims of this study were to characterize patients with PSC listed for and undergoing retransplantation and to describe the outcomes in these patients. The United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was used to identify all primary liver transplantations and subsequent relistings and first retransplantations in adults with PSC between 1987 and 2015. A total of 5080 adults underwent primary transplantation for PSC during this period, and of the 1803 who experienced graft failure (GF), 762 were relisted, and 636 underwent retransplantation. Younger patients and patients with GF due to vascular thrombosis or biliary complications were more likely to be relisted, whereas those with Medicaid insurance or GF due to infection were less likely. Both 5-year graft and patient survival after retransplantation were inferior to primary transplantation (P < 0.001). Five-year survival after retransplantation for disease recurrence (REC), however, was similar to primary transplantation (graft survival, P = 0.45; patient survival, P = 0.09) and superior to other indications for retransplantation (graft and patient survival, P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, mechanical ventilation, creatinine, bilirubin, albumin, advanced donor age, and a living donor were associated with poorer outcomes after retransplantation. In conclusion, although survival after liver retransplantation in patients with PSC was overall inferior to primary transplantation, outcomes after retransplantation for PSC REC were similar to primary transplantation at 5 years. Retransplantation may therefore represent a treatment option with the potential for excellent outcomes in patients with REC of PSC in the appropriate clinical circumstances. Liver Transplantation 23 769-780 2017 AASLD.

Liver Retransplantation: How Much Is Too Much?

Hepatic retransplantation has been surgically challenging since the beginning of liver transplant. Outcomes have improved over time, but patient survival with retransplant continues to be significantly worse than that of primary transplant. Many studies have focused on factors to predict outcomes. Models have been developed to help predict risk, but the decision for retransplant must be a multidisciplinary transplant team decision. The question of "when is too much?" can be guided by recipient and donor factors but is an ethical decision that must be made by the liver transplant team.

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.

Rate and predictors of progression in elite and viremic HIV-1 controllers

BACKGROUND

The proportion of HIV controllers developing virologic, immunological or clinical progression and the baseline predictors of these outcomes have not been assessed in large cohorts.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort of HIV controllers was followed from baseline (the first of the three HIV-1 RNA levels < 50 in elite controller or from 50 to 2000 copies/ml in viremic controllers) up to August 2011, to the development of a progression event (loss of viral load control, CD4 decline, AIDS or death) or to the censoring date (lost to follow-up or initiation of antiretroviral therapy). Predictive models of progression at baseline and a risk score for the combined HIV-1 progression end point were calculated.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seventy-five HIV-1 controllers of whom 204 (42.9%) were elite controller with 2972 person-years of follow-up were identified. One hundred and forty-one (29.7%) patients lost viral load control. CD4 cell count declined in 229 (48.2%) patients. Thirteen patients developed an AIDS event and four died. Two hundred and eighty-seven (60.4%) developed a combined HIV-1 progression. Baseline predictors for the progression end points and for elite and viremic controller patients were very similar: risk for HIV-1 acquisition, baseline calendar year, CD4 nadir, viral load before baseline and hepatitis C virus coinfection. The probability of a combined HIV-1 progression at 5 years was 70% for elite controllers with the highest score compared with 13% for those with the lowest.

CONCLUSION

HIV-1 disease progression in elite and viremic controllers is frequent. We propose a baseline clinical score to easily classify these patients according to risk of progression. This score could be instrumental for taking clinical decisions and performing pathogenic studies.

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.

Optimizing repeat liver transplant graft utility through strategic matching of donor and recipient characteristics

Repeat liver transplantation (LT) is controversial because of inferior outcomes versus primary LT. A minimum 1-year expected post-re-LT survival of 50% has been proposed. We aimed to identify combinations of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), donor risk index (DRI), and recipient characteristics achieving this graft survival threshold. We identified re-LT recipients listed in the United States from March 2002 to January 2010 with > 90 days between primary LT and listing for re-LT. Using Cox regression, we estimated the expected probability of 1-year graft survival and identified combinations of MELD, DRI, and recipient characteristics attaining >50% expected 1-year graft survival. Re-LT recipients (n = 1418) had a median MELD of 26 and median age of 52 years. Expected 1-year graft survival exceeded 50% regardless of MELD or DRI in Caucasian recipients who were not infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) of all ages and Caucasian HCV-infected recipients <50 years old. As age increased in HCV-infected Caucasian and non-HCV-infected African American recipients, lower MELD scores or lower DRI grafts were needed to attain the graft survival threshold. As MELD scores increased in HCV-infected African American recipients, lower-DRI livers were required to achieve the graft survival threshold. Use of high-DRI livers (>1.44) in HCV-infected recipients with a MELD score > 26 at re-LT failed to achieve the graft survival threshold with recipient age ≥ 60 years (any race), as well as at age ≥ 50 years for Caucasians and at age < 50 years for African Americans. Strategic donor selection can achieve >50% expected 1-year graft survival even in high-risk re-LT recipients (HCV infected, older age, African American race, high MELD scores). Low-risk transplant recipients (age < 50 years, non-HCV-infected) can achieve the survival threshold with varying DRI and MELD scores.

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.

Graft and viral outcomes in retransplantation for hepatitis C virus recurrence and HCV primary liver transplantation: a case-control study

INTRODUCTION

The use of liver retransplantation (ReLT) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence is controversial because of subsequent viral recurrence after ReLT.

METHODS

Case-control analysis between patients undergoing ReLT for HCV reinfection between 1993 and 2012 (ReLT group: 26 patients) and patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for HCV infection immediately before and after each ReLT (LT group: 52 patients).

RESULTS

ReLT group had worse hepatocellular function, higher preoperative viral load, higher transfusion requirements, and increased number of postoperative complications than LT group. ReLT patients showed a trend toward worse graft survival compared with LT (five-yr graft survival: 42.3% vs. 64.3%, p = 0.145), but the rate of severe HCV recurrence and infection-free survival (IFS) was similar. The use of donors older than 60 yr led to a lower IFS and graft survival in both groups. Early severe HCV infection rate was similar in both groups, but it affected prognosis in ReLT more markedly than in LT (three-yr graft survival: 0% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

ReLT for HCV reinfection has acceptable results when strict selection policies of donor and recipient are applied. However, early severe recurrence more markedly impairs prognosis in ReLT patients than in LT.

Retransplantation of the liver: review of current literature for decision making and technical considerations

Liver transplantation (LTx) is an established treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver disease, metabolic disorders, and patients with acute liver failure. When a graft fails after primary LTx, retransplantation of the liver (reLTx) is the only potential cure. ReLTx accounts for 7%-10% of all LTx in the United States. Early causes of graft failure for which reLTx may be indicated include primary graft nonfunction and vascular inflow thrombosis. ReLTx in such cases in the early postoperative period is usually straightforward as long as an appropriate secondary allograft is secured in a timely fashion. Late indications may include ischemic cholangiopathy, chronic rejection, and recurrence of the primary liver disease. ReLTx performed in the late period is often more complex and selection criteria are more stringent due to the persistent shortage of organs. The question of whether to retransplant patients with recurrent hepatitis C remains controversial, but these practices are likely to change as the epidemic progresses and new treatments evolve. We also present recent results with reLTx from Yale-New Haven Transplant Center and early results with the use of living donors for reLTx.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after early versus late liver retransplantation: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

As the survival of patients after liver transplantation (LT) improves, the requirement of liver retransplantation (reLT) for late graft failure has grown. Although some have reported that the short-term outcome of late reLT was comparable with that of early reLT, it remains unknown whether long-term survival of late reLT is inferior to that of early reLT patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed early (<6 mo after primary LT) and late (≥6 mo after primary LT) reLT cases performed between January 2000 and December 2010.

RESULTS

Sixteen early and 32 late reLT cases were analyzed. There was no significant difference regarding the number of units of red blood cells transfused during the transplantation between the groups, whereas operative time was significantly longer in the late reLT cases. Graft loss within 3 mo after early and late reLT was 18.6% and 15.6%, respectively. Patient and graft survival rates after 1, 3, 5, and 10 y in the late reLT group were 80.6%, 73.3%, 73.3%, and 67.7% and 80.7%, 69.1%, 63.3%, and 54.3%, respectively, whereas those in the early reLT group were 75.0%, 75.0%, 64.3%, and 64.3% and 81.3%, 75.0%, 64.3%, and 32.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient or graft survival rates between the groups (P = 0.91 and 0.91, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptable short- and long-term survival were provided in early and late reLT. The time between the primary LT and reLT does not seem to play significant role in the prognosis of reLT in the long term.

[Analysis of liver waiting list mortality in Paraná, Brazi: what shall we do to face organ shortage?]

BACKGROUND

Orthotopic liver transplantation is the best therapeutic modality for patients with end stage of liver disease. Minimization of death, while waiting for the procedure, involves accurate priorization according to clinical status and appropriate allocation of donor livers.

AIM

The mortality analysis in the liver waiting list in Paraná state, PR, Brazil.

METHODS

Were analyzed the data on all patients (n = 65) who were registered on the liver waiting list during a 32 months period in the state of Paraná, southern Brazil.

RESULTS

The death rated in waiting list was 41,5% (n = 27). No statistic difference was observed regarding the MELD/MELD-Na scores between the group who died (19,88/21,6) and not died (17,28/19,47). MELD-Na predicted a higher mortality, especially in the subgroup of patients with intermediate severity of disease (class B) predicted by the CTP score.

CONCLUSION

It´s critical the shortage of donor organs in our region, waiting list mortality rate far exceeds the inherent risk of a liver transplant, especially among patients with lower MELD scores. It´s desirable to use an aggressive protocol of expanded criteria donors, split liver and living donor transplant.

Short- and long-term outcomes of third liver transplantation at single centre

PURPOSE

Although three or more liver transplantation (LT)s in the same patient arouse not only medical but also ethical issues in the context of organ shortage, it is a fact that additional liver retransplantation (reLT) is the only lifesaving treatment option for those with graft failure after a second LT. However, little is known regarding the risks and benefits associated with a third LT.

METHODS

We analyzed fifteen cases of third LT and 48 of second LT performed between January 2000 and December 2010. Clinical outcomes were compared with those of second LT cases performed during the same period.

RESULTS

Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores at transplant was similar between the two groups. As for surgical aspects, there was no significant difference in operative time or number of units of red blood cells transfused during the transplant procedures between the groups. Patient and graft survival after the third LT at 1, 3, and 10 years were 66.7, 51.9, and 44.4 %, and 66.7, 51.9, and 29.6 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient or graft survival between the groups. However, graft loss within 3 months after the third LT was significantly higher than that of second LT patients.

CONCLUSION

Third LT cases showed acceptable short- and long-term outcomes that were not significantly inferior to those of a second LT. Careful patient care especially in the early phase after a third LT may be essential to improve the outcome.

Have we changed the liver retransplantation survival?

INTRODUCTION

Orthotropic liver retransplantation (RT) is the therapeutic option for the failure of an allograft. Patient and graft survival rates after RT are inferior to primary liver transplantation (OLT). Because of the limited number of donors, it is essential that we optimize their use. We reviewed 68 consecutive retransplantations to evaluate their results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using registry data from our Liver Transplantation Unit, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adult RT between 1991 and 2010. Patients were divided into 2 groups (urgent vs elective RT) to compare the utility of RT. We also analyzed data collected at the time of RT, including age, gender, indications for primary OLT and RT (hepatitis C virus [HCV]+ and HCV-). At various stages (1991-2000, 2001-2006, and 2007-2010), we calculated probability survival curves according to the Kaplan-Meier method with comparisons using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Among 771 adult liver transplantations, 68 (8.8%) underwent late secondary OLT. 21 (31%) cases were urgent and 47 elective RT (69%). Vascular complications was the most common cause for urgent RT, and chronic rejection, for elective RT. Differences were also detected in the overall survival of RT patients; mortality was significantly lower among the urgent procedures (15% vs 47.8%). Significantly differences were also detected in overall survival for RT patients between 2007 and 2010 (81.7% with urgent RT and 76.5% with elective situations).

CONCLUSION

These data confirmed the utility of RT in elective and emergency situations. Overall survival of elective RT patients has improved in recent years. Liver RT requires a multidisciplinary team to decide the inclusion and prioritization of elective RT cases on the OLT waiting list.

Liver retransplantation in HIV-infected patients: a prospective cohort study

Information regarding liver retransplantation in HIV-infected patients is scant. Data from 14 HIV-infected patients retransplanted between 2002 and 2011 in Spain (6% retransplantation rate) were analyzed and compared with those from 157 matched HIV-negative retransplanted patients. In HIV-infected patients, early (≤30 days) retransplantation was more frequently indicated (57% vs. 29%; p = 0.057), and retransplantation for HCV recurrence was less frequently indicated (7% vs. 37%; p = 0.036). Survival probability after retransplantation in HIV-positive patients was lower than in HIV-negative patients, 42% versus 64% at 3 years, although not significantly (p = 0.160). Among HIV-infected patients, those with undetectable HCV RNA at retransplantation and those with late (>30 days) retransplantation showed better 3-year survival probability (80% and 67%, respectively), similar to that in their respective HIV-negative counterparts (72% and 70%). In HIV-infected and HIV-negative patients, 3-year survival probability in those with positive HCV RNA at retransplantation was 22% versus 65% (p = 0.008); in those with early retransplantation, 3-year survival probability was 25% versus 56% (p = 0.282). HIV infection was controlled with antiretroviral therapy after retransplantation. In conclusion, HIV-infected patients taken as a whole have unsatisfactory survival after liver retransplantation, although patients with undetectable HCV RNA at retransplantation or undergoing late retransplantation show a more favorable outcome.

What is the prognosis after retransplantation of the liver?

In patients with failing liver grafts, hepatic retransplantation cannot be abandoned for the ethical and practical reasons that have been detailed previously. The current recommendations involve a strategy for risk stratification of retransplant candidates. The long-term patient and graft survival outcomes after ReLT are excellent and acceptable for the low and intermediate groups, respectively. However, pursuing ReLT in transplant candidates in the high-risk category cannot be recommended. Furthermore, ReLT should be reserved for centers equipped to manage the difficulties of the endeavor because it is a technically demanding operation that requires surgical expertise and excellent anesthesiology and critical care support both before and after transplantation.

Liver transplantation in the setting of chronic HCV

Recurrent HCV disease is the most common cause of graft loss and patient mortality in HCV-infected liver transplant (LT) recipients. Risk factors for more severe recurrence that are potentially modifiable are older donor age, prolonged cold ischaemia time, prior treated acute rejection, CMV hepatitis, IL28B donor genotype, and post-LT insulin resistance. The most effective means of preventing HCV recurrence is eradicating HCV prior to LT. Select wait-list candidates with compensated or mildly decompensated disease can be considered for antiviral treatment with peginterferon, ribavirin (and protease inhibitor if genotype 1). For the majority of LT patients, HCV treatment must be delayed until post-transplant. Treatment is generally undertaken if histologic severity reaches grade 3 or 4 necroinflammation or stage ≥2 fibrosis, or if cholestatic hepatitis. Achievement of sustained viral response (SVR) post-LT is associated with stabilization of fibrosis and improved graft survival. SVR is attained in ~30% of patients treated with peginterferon and ribavirin. Poor tolerability of therapy is a limitation. Combination therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin is anticipated to increase efficacy but with higher rates of adverse effects and challenges in managing drug-drug interactions between the protease inhibitors and calcineurin inhibitors/sirolimus.

A score predicting survival after liver retransplantation for hepatitis C virus cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Approximately one fourth of patients transplanted for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-induced liver failure progress to cirrhosis within 5 years, potentially requiring retransplantation. Although the relisting decision can be difficult in these patients, a score could help in selection of candidates with the best potential outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 1422 HCV-positive patients having undergone a retransplantation were included in this registry-based study. A multivariate Cox regression was performed, and an Akaike procedure was applied to design a score predicting survival after retransplantation and to allow an internal validation. Retained variables were donor age (DnAge), serum creatinine (Creat), International Normalized Ratio (INR), and serum albumin (Alb) at the second transplantation, recipient age (RecAge) at the first transplantation, and the interval between both transplantations (Int).

RESULTS

The score was designed as 0.23×DnAge+4.86×log Creat-2.45×log Int+2.69×INR+0.10×RecAge-3.27× Alb+40. The receiver operating characteristic area under curve was 0.643 at 3 years, and survivals were 71%, 56%, and 37% for scores <30, 30 to 40, and >40, respectively (log rank <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the proposed score is specifically designed for HCV-positive patients, accurately predicts survival after a liver retransplantation, and is helpful in the selection of candidates with the best potential outcomes.

Influence of selected factors on survival after liver retransplantation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the survival of adult liver retransplant recipients depending on selected factors: time from the primary transplantation, cold ischemia time, indications for retransplantation, patient age and United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between December 1989 and March 2011, we performed 43 orthotopic liver retransplantations (re-OLTs) among patients aged 20-62 years including 24 women and 19 men. The cold ischemia time was 250-820 minutes. UNOS status before re-OLT: UNOS 1 (n=19; 44%) UNOS 2A (n=15; 35%), and UNOS 2B (n=4; 9%). The time from OLT to re-OLT was 1-2, 146 days. The indications for re-OLT were arterial thrombosis (n=14; 33%), anastomotic biliary complication (n=3; 7%), recurrence of the original disease (n=9; 21%), hepatic vein thrombosis (n=1; 2%), primary nonfunction (PNF) dysfunction (n=2; [5%] /6 [14%]), de novo hepatitis C cirrhosis (n=2; 5%) and other etiologies (n=6; 14%).

RESULTS

The 6-year survival among the primary OLT group was 80% compared with 58% among the re-OLT group (P=.0001). One-year survivals in the re-OLT group according to UNOS status 1, 2A, and 2B were 47%, 60%, and 75%, respectively (P=.475). There was a low negative correlation between survival time and time between OLT and re-OLT. There was a low positive correlation between survival time and cold ischemia time. There was a low negative correlation between survival time and patient age.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant difference in survival between OLT and re-OLT. There was a correlation between survival time and time to re-OLTx; a shorter time corresponded to longer survival. There was a poor correlation between survival time and patient age. UNOS status before re-OLT and indication for re-OLTx influenced survival.

Liver transplantation and hepatitis C

Hepatitis-C-virus- (HCV-) related end-stage cirrhosis is the primary indication for liver transplantation in many countries. Unfortunately, however, HCV is not eliminated by transplantation and graft reinfection is universal, resulting in fibrosis, cirrhosis, and finally graft decompensation. The use of poor quality organs, particularly from older donors, has a highly negative impact on the severity of recurrence and patient/graft survival. Although immunosuppressive regimens have a considerable impact on the outcome, the optimal regimen after liver transplantation for HCV-infected patients remains unclear. Disease progression monitoring with protocol biopsy and new noninvasive methods is essential for predicting patient/graft outcome and starting antiviral treatment with the appropriate timing. Antiviral treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is currently considered the most promising regimen with a sustained viral response rate of around 30% to 35%, although the survival benefit of this regimen remains to be investigated. Living-donor liver transplantation is now widely accepted as an established treatment for HCV cirrhosis and the results are equivalent to those of deceased donor liver transplantation.

Predictive index for long-term survival after retransplantation of the liver in adult recipients: analysis of a 26-year experience in a single center

OBJECTIVE

To develop a prognostic scoring system for risk stratification of patients with hepatic graft failure (GF) undergoing retransplants of the liver (ReLT) and improve patient selection.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Retransplantation of the liver remains controversial because of inferior outcomes compared with the primary orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) and raises concerns of inappropriate utilization of a scarce donor organ resource. Data on risk stratification of ReLT patients for long-term survival outcomes are limited.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis from our prospective database of 466 adults' ReLT between February 1984 and September 2010. Mean follow-up was 3 years. Each independent predictor for allograft failure was assigned risk score (RS) points of 1 or 2, proportional to the corresponding parameter estimate under the Cox model: Predictive index category (PIC) 1, RS = 0; PIC II, RS = 1 to 2; PIC III, RS = 3 to 4; and PIC IV, RS = 5 to 12.

RESULTS

Eight risk factors predictive for GF after ReLT included recipient age greater than 55 years, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score greater than 27, history of prior OLT greater than 1, pre-ReLT requirement for mechanical ventilation, serum albumin less than 2.5 g/dL, donor age greater than 45 years, intraoperative requirement of packed red blood cell transfusion greater than 30 units, and performance of ReLT between 15 and 180 days from the prior OLT. Five-year GF-free survival was significantly higher in PIC I (65%) than in PIC II (53%), PIC III (43%), and PIC IV (20%) groups (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This risk-stratification model was highly predictive of long-term outcome after liver retransplantation in adult recipients. This formula provides a practical guide for selection of candidates for retransplantation of the liver that can lead to improved patient outcomes and optimal utilization of a scarce resource.

Impact of MELD on waitlist outcome of retransplant candidates

Under the current allocation system for liver transplantation (LTx), primary and retransplantation (ReTx) are treated identically. The aims of this study were (1) to compare the risk of death between ReTx and primary LTx candidates at a given MELD score and (2) to gauge the impact of the MELD-based allocation system on the waitlist outcome of ReTx candidates. Based on data of all waitlist registrants in the United States between 2000 and 2006, unique adult patients with chronic liver disease were identified and followed forward to determine mortality within six months of registration. There were a total of 45,943 patients waitlisted for primary LTx and 2081 registered for ReTx. In the MELD era (n = 30,175), MELD was significantly higher among ReTx candidates than primary LTx candidates (median, 21 vs. 15). Within a range of MELD scores where most transplantation took place, mortality was comparable between ReTx and primary candidates after adjusting for MELD. The probability for LTx increased significantly following implementation of the MELD-based allocation in both types of candidates. We conclude that by and large, primary and ReTx candidates fare equitably under the current MELD-based allocation system, which has contributed to a significant increase in the probability of LTx.

Retransplantation in patients with hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection recurs universally after liver transplantation (LT) and fibrosis progression is accelerated in the graft. Retransplantation (RT) is the only therapeutic option to achieve long-term survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis after LT. Patient and graft survival rates after RT are inferior to those after primary LT. It is generally accepted that severe hepatitis C recurrence (cholestatic hepatitis) and forms with rapid fibrosis progression have a poor survival after RT. However, it is not clear whether rapid fibrosis progression in the first graft will be followed by the same rate of fibrosis progression in the second graft. The use of prognostic scores as screening tools has shown an improvement in survival in HCV-infected patients after RT, reaching similar survival rates as those obtained in non HCV-infected patients. Moreover, these scores can identify candidates with a high risk of mortality in whom the use of a new organ would be unreasonable. Prevention of severe hepatitis C recurrence could be the first step to avoid RT. Thus, antiviral treatment on the waiting list (if possible) and early identification and treatment of patients with severe hepatitis C recurrence may be a good strategy to avoid RT. In addition, active management of factors which can accelerate fibrosis progression (donor age, post-transplant diabetes, high dose of corticosteroids) might reduce the incidence of severe forms of hepatitis C recurrence.

Indications for and survival after liver retransplantation

INTRODUCTION

Orthotopic liver retransplantation (re-OLT) is the therapeutic option for hepatic graft failures. Survival after re-OLT is poorer than after primary OLT. Given that there is an organ shortage, it is essential that we optimize our use of this scarce resource. We evaluated the results of re-OLT among 58 consecutive Re-OLT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using registry data from our Liver Transplantation Unit, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adult urgent versus elective re-OLT between 1991 and 2008. We recorded the indications for the initial OLT, and the intervals from OLT to re-OLT as well as age and gender. Using the Rosen model to stratify patients into low-intermediate-, and high-risk groups we calculated survivals.

RESULTS

Among 661 adult liver transplantations, 56 patients (8.4%) underwent late re-OLT at a median of 654.4 days post-OLT. There were 17 (29%) urgent re-OLT and 41 elective cases (71%). Vascular complications were the most common cause of urgent re-OLT (64%); elective re-OLT was primarily due to chronic rejection (56.1%). Overall survival for retransplanted patients was significantly lower among urgent procedures (82.4% vs 48.8%), as well as for overall survival after re-OLT for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) versus other etiologies.

CONCLUSION

These data confirmed the utility of retransplantation in elective and emergency situations. Liver re-transplantation has a high morbidity and mortality. It requires multidisciplinary experience to decide inclusion and prioritization criteria for re-OLT, especially among patients with HCV.

Small difference in international normalized ratio may yield a significant impact on prioritizing patients listed for liver transplantation

Priority for liver transplantation is currently based on the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. The aim of our study was to assess in detail the contribution of international normalized ratio (INR) differences for MELD scores because of interlaboratory variability. The samples from 92 cirrhotic patients were measured on different systems combining three coagulometers and three thromboplastin products to determine variations in INR and MELD score. The INR differences among the first four systems varied between 0 and 0.2, resulting in MELD differences of 0 to 2. The MELD scores of 92 patients changed only among 10 possible integers so that normally 2 to 10 patients shared the same MELD value. In some cases, one MELD score difference resulted in a 10 superpositioning on the waiting list. Including one more system (mechanical vs optical) into our investigations achieved a five MELD difference. Supposing an extreme situation where one patient competes with his or her lowest, all the other with their highest possible score (and visa versa), the difference may be even 20 positions, overturning the complete waiting list. In conclusion substantial interlaboratory differences in MELD score have profound clinical consequences.

Liver retransplantation in adults: a single-centre, 25-year experience

BACKGROUND

Retransplantation is the only form of treatment for patients with irreversible graft failure. The aim of this study was to analyse a single centre's experience of the indications for and outcomes of retransplantation.

METHODS

A total of 196 patients who underwent liver retransplantation using 225 grafts, between January 1982 and July 2007, were included in the study. The following parameters were analysed: patient demographics; primary diagnosis; distribution of retransplantation over different time periods; indications for retransplantation; time interval to retransplantation, and overall patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

Of the 2437 primary orthotopic liver transplantations, 196 patients (8%) required a first regraft, 23 patients (1%) a second regraft and six patients (0.25%) a third regraft. Autoimmune hepatitis was the most common primary diagnosis for which retransplantation was required (12.7% of primary transplantations). The retransplantation rate declined from 12% at the beginning of our programme to 7.6% at the end of the study period. The most common indication for retransplantation was hepatic artery thrombosis (31.6%). Nearly two-thirds of the retransplantations were performed within 6 months of the primary transplantation. The 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates following first retransplantation were 66%, 61%, 57% and 47%, respectively. Five-year survival after second retransplantation was 40%. None of the patients have yet survived 3 years after a third regraft. Donor age of < or =55 years and a MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score of < or =23 were associated with better outcome following retransplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

First retransplantation was associated with good longterm survival. There was no survival benefit following second and third retransplantations. A MELD score of < or =23 and donor age of < or =55 years correlated with better outcome following retransplantation.