Retransplantation for recurrent hepatitis C in the model for end-stage liver disease era: how should we or shouldn't we?

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.

An outcome comparison between primary liver transplantation and retransplantation based on the pretransplant MELD score

Survival after liver retransplantation (RLTX) is worse than after primary liver transplantation (LTX). We studied retrospectively the 2-year outcome in 44 patients who received RLTX more than 30 days after the primary transplant and in 669 after LTX performed between December 1993 and October 1999, focusing on the relation between the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score immediately pretransplant and post-transplant survival. A 2-year survival for RLTX was inferior to LTX (65.9% vs. 82.9%, P < or = 0.01). This difference was greatest with MELD scores < 25; survival within 2 years remained 11.3-18.2% less for RLTX than for LTX (6 months, P = 0.002; 12 months, P = 0.029, 24 months, P = 0.123). Mortality was mainly related to early vascular complications and sepsis. Two-year survival after RLTX was 81.8% if RLTX occurred < 2 years after LTX and 50% if the interval between LTX and RLTX was > 2 years (P < 0.05). MELD scores were similar in 2-year survivors and nonsurvivors after late RLTX (P = 0.82). Late RLTX is marked by poor survival regardless of the pretransplant MELD score. The MELD-based allocation system may not benefit patients who undergo retransplantation.

Practice of adult liver transplantation in Italy. Recommendations of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (A.I.S.F.)

Liver transplantation is an efficient procedure as performed in Italy, yet major differences are present in terms of practice. In an effort to facilitate an homogeneous practice of liver transplantation in Italy, the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Disease has instituted a Commission aimed at providing recommendations on non-urgent liver transplantation in adults, based on current evidence. This nation-wide commission which included experienced hepatologists, surgeons and pathologists with major interest in liver transplantation has drafted a final document in October 2004, approved by the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Governing Board, whose key arguments and main conclusions are summarised in the present paper. The Commission has made specific recommendations on the following topics: the current needs of liver transplantation in Italy; the indications to liver transplantation and re-liver transplantation, with special reference to controversial issues and the minimal listing criteria; the use of marginal donors and the need to optimise donor/recipient matching; the use of living donor liver transplantation; the management of the waiting list and the introduction of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease to define priorities; the clinical management of liver transplantation recipients and disease recurrence; the implementation of audits and outcome monitoring; the training of transplant surgeons and hepatologists and the requirements for Centre accreditation; the pathology of liver transplantation.

Analysis of long-term outcomes of 3200 liver transplantations over two decades: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). This work analyzes the experience of nearly 2 decades by the same team in a single center. Outcomes of OLT and factors affecting survival were analyzed.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 3200 consecutive OLTs that were performed at our institution, between February 1984 and December 31, 2001.

RESULTS

Of 2662 recipients, 578 (21.7%) and 659 (24.7%) were pediatric and urgent patients, respectively. Overall 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year patient and graft survival estimates were 81%, 72%, 68%, 64% and 73%, 64%, 59%, 55%, respectively. Patient survival significantly improved in the second (1992-2001) versus the era I (1984-1991) of transplantation (P < 0.001). Similarly, graft survival was better in the era II of transplantation (P < 0.02). However, biliary and infectious complications increased in era II. When OLT indications were considered, best recipient survival was obtained in children with biliary atresia (82%, 79%, and 78% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively), while malignant disease in adult patients resulted in the worst outcomes of 68% and 43% at 1 and 5 years, post-OLT. Further, patients <18 years and nonurgent recipients exhibited superior survival when compared with recipients >18 years (P < 0.001) or urgent patients (P < 0.001). Of 13 donor and recipient variables, era of OLT, recipient age, urgent status, donor age, donor length of hospital stay, etiology of liver disease, retransplantation, warm and cold ischemia, but not graft type (whole, split, living-donor), significantly impacted patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term benefits of OLT are greatest in pediatric and nonurgent patients. Multiple factors involving the recipient, etiology of liver disease, donor characteristics, operative variables, and surgical experience influence long-term survival outcomes. By balancing and matching these factors with a given recipient, optimum results can be achieved.

Retrasplante hepático: análisis de los resultados en 50 pacientes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Liver re-transplantation (re-LT) is an accepted indication for some (technical problems, primary non-function [PNF]) but not all indications, particularly recurrence of the original disease, such as hepatitis C. We aimed to determine in our center: a) the rate of survival following re-transplantation for all and each different indication; b) to compare it to that obtained by a control group; c) to assess whether late re-LT, excluding PNF and surgical problems, and re-LT in HCV (+) patients are associated with a higher mortality, and d) to estimate medical costs.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Form 1991 to April 2002, 50 re-LT were done (group 1). Group 2 consisted of 45 primary LT controlled by transplant date. Group 1 was divided in two subgroups: a) re-LT after 6 months of the first LT (recurrence of primary liver disease n = 20, chronic rejection n = 5), b) Re-LT in the first 6 months (PNF n = 13, artery thrombosis n = 12). We analyzed donor, recipient, surgical and immunosuppressive-related variables.

RESULTS

The mean age was 50 years (range: 23-63) (72% men). Actuarial survival for re-LT was lower than for the control group: 64%, 57% and 50% vs 84%, 82% and 82% at 1st, 3rd and 5th year, respectively. By indication, the 3-year survival was: PNF: 61% (p = 0.05), HAT: 58% (p = 0.02), recurrence of primary disease: 52% (p = 0.001), chronic rejection: 60% (p = 0.346). Although not reaching statistical significance, survival was lower in late vs early re-LT (p = 0.16) and in HCV-infected versus non-infected patients (p = 0.08). In the HCV (+) group, there were no differences by re-transplant indication (p = 0.8). Medical costs and complications were substantially higher in group 1 vs group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-LT is associated with substantial medical costs and mortality, particularly in patients infected with HCV.