Decision for retransplantation of the liver: an experience- and cost-based analysis. Ann Surg. 2002;236:713-21; discussion 721. [PMID: 12454509 DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200212000-00003]

An updated analysis of retransplantation following living donor liver transplantation in the United States: Insights from the latest UNOS database

There is no recent update on the clinical course of retransplantation (re-LT) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the US using recent national data. The UNOS database (2002-2023) was used to explore patient characteristics in initial LT, comparing deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and LDLT for graft survival (GS), reasons for graft failure, and GS after re-LT. It assesses waitlist dropout and re-LT likelihood, categorizing re-LT cohort based on time to re-listing as acute or chronic (≤ or > 1 mo). Of 132,323 DDLT and 5955 LDLT initial transplants, 3848 DDLT and 302 LDLT recipients underwent re-LT. Of the 302 re-LT following LDLT, 156 were acute and 146 chronic. Primary nonfunction (PNF) was more common in DDLT, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.4% vs. 14.8% for LDLT; p = 0.52). Vascular complications were significantly higher in LDLT (12.5% vs. 8.3% for DDLT; p < 0.01). Acute re-LT showed a larger difference in primary nonfunction between DDLT and LDLT (49.7% vs. 32.0%; p < 0.01). Status 1 patients were more common in DDLT (51.3% vs. 34.0% in LDLT; p < 0.01). In the acute cohort, Kaplan-Meier curves indicated superior GS after re-LT for initial LDLT recipients in both short-term and long-term ( p = 0.02 and < 0.01, respectively), with no significant difference in the chronic cohort. No significant differences in waitlist dropout were observed, but the initial LDLT group had a higher re-LT likelihood in the acute cohort (sHR 1.40, p < 0.01). A sensitivity analysis focusing on the most recent 10-year cohort revealed trends consistent with the overall study findings. LDLT recipients had better GS in re-LT than DDLT. Despite a higher severity of illness, the DDLT cohort was less likely to undergo re-LT.

Indications and outcomes of liver retransplantation in three medical centers

INTRODUCTION

retransplantation is the only viable treatment for patients with irreversible graft loss. The objective of this study was to analyze the indications and outcomes of liver retransplantation in three medical centers.

METHODS

a total of 66 patients who underwent liver retransplantation from September 1991 to December 2021 were included in the study. A retrospective analysis was performed evaluating patients demographic, clinical, primary diagnosis, indications for and time interval to retransplantation, complications and patient survival.

RESULTS

from a total of 1293 primary liver transplants performed, 70 required one or more liver retransplant. The main indication for primary transplant was hepatitis C cirrhosis (21,2%). Hepatic artery thrombosis was the main cause of retransplantation (60,6%), with almost half (46,9%) of retransplants having occurred within 30 days from initial procedure. The average survival time after a repeat liver transplant, was 89,1 months, with confidence interval from 54 to 124,2. The 1-,5- and 10- year survival rate following liver retransplant were 48,4%, 38% and 30,1%, respectively. Male gender, primary non function as the cause for retransplant, prolonged operative time and higher MELD were associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

operative mortality and morbidity rates of liver retransplantation are higher than those of the first transplantation. Male gender, primary non function, prolonged operative time and higher MELD were associated with less favorable outcomes.

Trajectories of patients relisted for liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Recurrent cirrhosis complicates 10-30% of Liver transplants (LT) and can lead to consideration for re-transplantation. We evaluated the trajectories of relisted versus primary listed patients on the waitlist using a competing risk framework.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 1,912 patients listed for LT at our centre between from 2012 to 2020. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess overall survival (OS) by listing type and competing risk analysis Fine-Gray models were used to assess cumulative incidence of transplant by listing type.

RESULTS

1,731 patients were included (104 relisted). 44.2% of relisted patients received exception points vs. 19.8% of primary listed patients (p<0.001). Patients relisted without exceptions, representing those with graft cirrhosis, had the worst OS (HR: 4.17, 95%CI 2.63 - 6.67, p=<0.0001) and lowest instantaneous rate of transplant (HR: 0.56, 95%CI 0.38 - 0.83, p=0.006) than primary listed with exception points. On multivariate analysis listing type, height, bilirubin and INR were associated with cumulative incidence of transplant, while listing type, bilirubin, INR, sodium, creatinine were associated with OS. Within relisted patients, there was a trend towards higher mortality (HR: 1.79, 95%CI 0.91 - 3.52, p=0.08) and low transplant incidence (HR: 0.51, 95%CI 0.22 - 1.15, p=0.07) for graft cirrhosis vs other relisting indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients relisted for LT are carefully curated and comprise a minority of the waitlist population. Despite their younger age, they have worse liver/kidney function, poor waitlist survival, and decreased transplant incidence suggesting the need for early relisting, while considering standardized exception points.

Mortality and Morbidity Among Adult Liver Retransplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is life-saving procedure for patients with end-stage liver failure with up to 20% of patients suffering graft failure following primary transplantation. Retransplantation (ReLT) remains the only definitive treatment for irreversible graft failure.

AIMS

We aimed to explore the postoperative outcomes following liver ReLT.

METHODS

Patients who had received a liver transplant between 2003 and 2016 were retrospectively identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTRs). Patients were stratified based on previous liver transplant history. The primary outcomes of this study were 5-year postoperative mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay following LT.

RESULTS

60,554 (96%) recipients were first LT recipients and 2524 (4%) were ReLT recipients. Compared with first LT, ReLT recipients had significantly higher rates of mortality (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.76-2.12), overall morbidity (OR 1.80, 95%CI 1.65-1.96), and prolonged length of stay (OR 1.66, 95%CI 1.52-1.81) on multivariate analysis. Morbidity including cardiovascular (CVD) complications (OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.08-1.60), graft failure (OR 2.18, 95%CI 1.84-2.57), infection (OR 2.13, 95%CI 1.82-2.50), and hemorrhage (OR 2.67, 95%CI 2.00-3.61) were significantly greater in ReLT recipients. Compared to first LT, ReLT patients had a significant increase in overall 5-year mortality (p < 0.001), 5-year mortality due to CVD complications (p < 0.001), infection (p = 0.009), but not graft failure (p = 0.3543).

CONCLUSION

ReLT is associated with higher rates of 5-year mortality, overall morbidity, CVD morbidity, infection, and graft failure. Higher 5-year mortality in ReLT is due to CVD and infections. These results could be used in preoperative patient assessment and prognostic counseling for ReLT.

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.

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience

BACKGROUND

Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated.

METHOD

We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant.

RESULTS

A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant.

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.

The Effect of Early Retransplantation on Early and Late Survival After Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Early liver retransplantation after liver transplantation (LT) is the ultimate salvage procedure for irreversible graft failure. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of early retransplantation on 90-day and 5-year patient survival.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 2185 patients after LT in the period between 1997 and 2019. First, the patients undergoing first retransplantation within 6 months after initial LT were compared with naïve LT patients for early mortality (within 90 days). Second, to assess late survival, the patients who had retransplantation and survived at least 90 days post LT were compared with naïve LT patients for 5-year overall survival. The patients undergoing late retransplantation (>6 months) were excluded from analyses. Fisher's exact test was used to compare groups for early survival and log-rank test for late survival.

RESULTS

The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival was 87.0%, 79.9%, 75.0%, respectively, and did not differ significantly between the groups. The patients undergoing early retransplantation had lower 90-day survival rate of 89.2% as compared to 95.7% for naïve LT patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The early liver retransplantation has profound impact on post-LT 90-day survival; however, patients who survive that period can achieve long overall survival comparable with naïve LT 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.

Patient survival following third time liver transplant in the United States in the MELD era

BACKGROUND

Third time liver transplantation is a technically demanding exercise with variable outcomes in single center series. There has been no national level description of survival following third time liver transplant in the US in the MELD era.

METHODS

Third time liver transplants between March 1, 2002 and January 1, 2018 in the UNOS dataset were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient survival among the 240 third time liver transplant recipients in the study at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years (71.8%, 62.4%, 59.1%, 49.5%) was significantly worse compared to primary liver transplant (90.6%, 83.9%, 78.8%, 67.6%; p < 0.001) and retransplant (77.1%, 70.3%, 65.6%, 54.9%; p = 0.014). Recipients who were under 43 years old, not on dialysis, without diabetes, and over 1 month out from their second transplant had acceptable survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years (88.5%, 78.4%, 73.6%, 69.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

While redo-redo transplant remains a challenging endeavor, appropriate patient selection can yield acceptable results.

Standardization of the Side-to-Side Cavo-Caval Anastomosis in Orthotopic Liver Transplantation Based on the Causal Analysis of Outflow Obstruction

BACKGROUND

Although liver transplantation is widely accepted as the therapeutic strategy for end-stage liver failure, complication of hepatic venous outflow obstruction remains lethal. Currently, ensuring a single wide orifice in both the graft and recipient inferior vena cava has been proposed to avoid hepatic venous outflow obstruction with no theoretical concept.

METHODS

We herein report a standardization technique for the reconstruction of the hepatic vein based on the causal analysis.

RESULTS

During the put-in process, the graft must be positioned in contact with the recipient diaphragm and slightly pushed to the cranial direction to simulate the state after abdominal closure. Because there is no extra space between the graft and diaphragm, the graft could not rotate about the anastomotic site of the inferior vena cava toward the diaphragm after abdominal closure as the intestinal pressure increases, and accordingly hepatic venous outflow obstruction does not develop.

CONCLUSIONS

With this concept, all transplant surgeons can successfully and easily perform hepatic vein reconstruction without total clamping of the inferior vena cava and without outflow block.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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 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).

Outcomes of Liver Resections after Liver Transplantation at a High-Volume Hepatobiliary Center

Although more than one million liver transplantations have been carried out worldwide, the literature on liver resections in transplanted livers is scarce. We herein report a total number of fourteen patients, who underwent liver resection after liver transplantation (LT) between September 2004 and 2017. Hepatocellular carcinomas and biliary tree pathologies were the predominant indications for liver resection (n = 5 each); other indications were abscesses (n = 2), post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (n = 1) and one benign tumor. Liver resection was performed at a median of 120 months (interquartile range (IQR): 56.5-199.25) after LT with a preoperative Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 11 (IQR: 6.75-21). Severe complications greater than Clavien-Dindo Grade III occurred in 5 out of 14 patients (36%). We compared liver resection patients, who had a treatment option of retransplantation (ReLT), with actual ReLTs (excluding early graft failure or rejection, n = 44). Bearing in mind that late ReLT was carried out at a median of 117 months after first transplantation and a median of MELD of 32 (IQR: 17.5-37); three-year survival following liver resection after LT was similar to late ReLT (50.0% vs. 59.1%; p = 0.733). Compared to ReLT, liver resection after LT is a rare surgical procedure with significantly shorter hospital (mean 25, IQR: 8.75-49; p = 0.034) and ICU stays (mean 2, IQR: 1-8; p < 0.001), acceptable complications and survival rates.

A Multicenter Japanese Survey Assessing the Long-term Outcomes of Liver Retransplantation Using Living Donor Grafts

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the most suitable treatment option available for end-stage liver disease. However, some patients require retransplantation, despite medical advances that have led to improved survival. We aimed to compile a definitive, nationwide resource of liver retransplantation data in Japan, seeking to identify the predictors of patient survival posttransplantation.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to 32 institutions that had conducted 281 retransplantations before 2015.

RESULTS

Among the 265 patients included in this study (142 pediatric cases), the average age at primary transplantation was 23 years, and retransplantation was performed after an average of 1468 days. The main indication for retransplantation was graft rejection (95 patients). Living-donor liver transplantation accounted for 94.7% of primary transplantations and 73.2% of retransplantations. Patient survival at 1, 3, or 5 years did not differ by type of transplantation but was better for pediatric (70.8%, 68.3%, and 60.1%, respectively) than for adult (57.2%, 50.4%, and 45.2%, respectively) recipients (P = 0.0003). Small-for-size syndrome, retransplantation within 365 days, and inpatient status at retransplantation were significant predictors of poor survival in pediatric cases. Retransplantation within 365 days and conditions warranting retransplantation were significant predictors of poor survival in adult patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, where >70% of retransplantations are performed using living donors, the indications and timing are different from those in previous reports from other countries, while maintaining comparable survival rates. Considering technical challenges, graft failure within 365 days should be thoroughly restricted to justify the use of living donor.

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.

Prognostic index consisting of early post-transplant variables <2 weeks in adult living-donor liver transplantation

AIM

Six-month recipient mortality after adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains high. Early and accurate prediction of recipient outcome and continuous monitoring of recipient severity after surgery are both essential for guiding appropriate care. This study was designed to identify early post-transplant parameters associated with 6-month mortality, and thereby to construct a discriminatory prognostic index (PI).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 400 consecutive primary adult-to-adult LDLTs in our center (2006-2017). Perioperative variables were comprehensively analyzed for their accuracy in predicting recipient mortality by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of each factor.

RESULTS

The AUROCs of preoperative predictive factors, for example, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and donor age, were 0.56 and 0.64, respectively, whereas those of post-transplant platelet count (PLT), total bilirubin (T-BIL), and prothrombin time - international normalized ratio (INR) on postoperative day (POD)-7-14 were 0.71/0.84, 0.68/0.82, and 0.71/0.78, respectively. Logistic regression analysis provided a formula: PI_POD-14  = 3.39 + 0.12 × PLT_POD-14  - 0.09 × T-BIL_POD-14  - 1.23 × INR_POD-14 , indicating a high AUROC of 0.87. Recipient 6-month survival with PI_POD-14  < 2.38 (n = 173) was 71.7%, whereas that with PI_POD-14  ≥ 2.38 (n = 222) was 97.7% (P < 0.001). The AUROCs of PI_POD-7 were as high as 0.8 in the subgroups with younger donors (<50 years of age), right lobe grafts, ABO-identical/compatible combinations, or low MELD score (<20), indicating usefulness of PI to identify unexpectedly complicated cases within the first week.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel, post-transplant survival estimator, PI, accurately predicts recipient 6-month mortality within 1-2 weeks after adult LDLT. Daily monitoring of PI could facilitate early interventions including retransplantation in critically ill patients.

Prognostic Factors in Pediatric Early Liver Retransplantation

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

CASE SUMMARY

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

CONCLUSION

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

Liver Retransplantation Associated With Kidney Transplantation for End-stage Liver Graft Disease and Renal Insufficiency: A Morbid Procedure on a Unique Subgroup of Patients

BACKGROUND

Chronic renal disease (CKD) jeopardizes the long-term outcomes of liver transplant recipients. In patients with end-stage liver graft disease and CKD, liver retransplantation associated with kidney transplantation (ReLT-KT) might be necessary. Yet, this specific subset of patients remains poorly described.

METHODS

Indications, perioperative characteristics, and short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing ReLT-KT at 2 transplantation units from 1994 to 2012 were analyzed. Risk factors for postoperative mortality and long-term survivals were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 3060 patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT), 45 (1.5%) underwent ReLT-KT. The proportion of ReLT-KT among LT recipients continuously grew throughout the study period from 0.3% to 2.4% (P < 0.001). Median time from primary LT to ReLT-KT was 151.3 (7.5-282.9) months. The most frequent indications for liver retransplantation were recurrence of the primary liver disease and cholangitis in 15 (33.3%) cases each. CKD was related to calcineurin inhibitors toxicity in 38 (84.4%) cases. Twelve (26.7%) patients died postoperatively. D-MELD (donor age × recipients' MELD) was associated with postoperative mortality (HR: 8.027; 95% CI: 2.387-18.223; P = 0.026) and optimal cut-off value was 1039 (AUC: 0.801; P = 0.002). Overall 1, 3, and 5 years survivals were 68.8%, 65.9%, and 59.5%, respectively. D-MELD > 1039 was the only factor associated with poor survival (P = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

ReLT-KT is a highly morbid increasingly performed procedure. Refinements in the selection of grafts and transplant candidates are required to limit the postoperative mortality of these patients.

Pre- and Peri-Operative Factors Associated with Chronic Critical Illness in Liver Transplant Recipients

Background: Chronic critical illness (CCI) is a new and increasing entity that accounts for substantial cost despite its low incidence. We hypothesized that patients with end-stage liver failure undergoing liver transplant would be at high risk for developing CCI. With limited liver donors it is essential to understand pre- and peritransplant predictors of CCI. Methods: To accomplish this we performed a retrospective cohort study at a large academic transplant center of all adult liver transplant patients from 2011 to 2017. We defined CCI as the need for mechanical ventilation for seven days or more post-transplant. Recipients who had re-transplantation during their index admission, acute rejection, or who died during transplant surgery were excluded. Logistic regression was performed using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the likelihood ratio test. Results: We identified 382 transplant recipients. Forty-five (11.8%) developed CCI. Univariable analysis identified 16 pre-transplant factors associated with post-transplant CCI. Subsequent multivariable logistic regression identified eight independent factors associated with CCI in liver transplant recipients including previous liver transplant, acute renal failure, frailty, lower albumin level, higher international normalized ratio, need for mechanical ventilation, and higher systolic pulmonary artery pressure. Pre-transplant factors associated with protection against CCI included higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Conclusion: The incidence of CCI post-liver transplant is similar to the general population admitted to the intensive care unit. Pre-transplant factors associated with CCI can help identify at-risk patients, and furthermore, promote further research and interventions with the goal to decrease the incidence of CCI in the liver transplant recipients.

Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging to evaluate graft perfusion during liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is a leading cause of graft loss after liver transplantation. There is no reliable method to anticipate this complication intraoperatively. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging is a technique used in hepatobiliary surgery for detection of liver malignancies, but has never been reported in the setting of liver transplantation (LT) for function assessment. We hypothesized that there could be an association between the type of fluorescence and the occurrence of PGD.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 72 patients who underwent LT at our center. An assessment of the liver graft with the ICG fluorescence technique was carried out. A classification comprising 3 types of fluorescence was created after evaluation of the recorded images. We assessed the relationship between the type of fluorescence and the occurrence of PGD.

RESULTS

Crosstabulation analysis of the fluorescent types and occurrence of PGD yielded a statistically significant association (p = 0.002). Univariate analysis showed that an abnormal ICG fluorescence pattern was a risk factor for the occurrence of PGD after LT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that there could be an association between ICG fluorescence imaging and graft function. This intraoperative tool could be useful to detect patients at risk of developing PGD after LT.

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.

Graft Dysfunction and Management in Liver Transplantation

Graft dysfunction of the liver allograft manifests across a spectrum in both timing posttransplantation and clinical presentation. This can range from mild transient abnormalities of liver tests to acute liver failure potentially leading to graft failure. The causes of graft dysfunction can be divided into those resulting in early and late graft dysfunction. Although nonspecific, liver biochemistry abnormalities are still the mainstay investigation used in monitoring for dysfunction. This article provides a summary of the main causes and management strategies for liver graft dysfunction in the early through late posttransplant stages.

Retransplant of the Liver: 12-Year Experience of the Shiraz Organs Transplantation Center

OBJECTIVES

Liver transplant is the most effective treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver disease, metabolic disorders, hepatic malignancy, and acute liver failure. When a graft fails after primary liver transplant, retransplant of the liver remains the only option. Here, we report the past 12-year experience of the Shiraz Transplant Center regarding liver retransplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of a 12-year period (2004-2015) of the Shiraz Center in Iran.

RESULTS

Of the 3107 patients who had a liver transplant during the study period, 58 retransplants were performed (1.86%) in 57 patients. The leading cause of retransplant was primary nonfunction in 24 patients (41.4% of retransplant cases and 0.77% of all liver transplant cases). The second leading cause of retransplant was vascular complications in 25 patients (23 with hepatic artery thrombosis and 2 with portal vein thrombosis), accounting for 43.1% of retransplant cases and 0.80% of all liver transplant cases. In addition, 5 patients (8.6%) had retransplant for rejection, which accounted for 0.16% of all liver transplant cases. Four patients with retransplant (6.9%) had recurrence of primary disease, which accounted for 0.12% of all liver transplant cases. Most liver retransplants occurred early (≤ 30 days after primary transplant) at the Shiraz Transplant Center. Five-year survival rate after retransplant was 35%, and retransplant for hepatic artery thrombosis was more common in children.

CONCLUSIONS

Because most patients required retransplants in the early period after primary transplant, the decision for retransplant must be considered carefully with full multidisciplinary evaluation and only in skilled hands. Retransplant in subgroups of patients with little chance of a successful outcome should be avoided.

Improved retransplant outcomes: early evidence of the share35 impact

BACKGROUND

Share 35 prioritizes offers of deceased donor livers to regional candidates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥35 over local candidates with lower MELD scores. Analysis of Share35 has shown that overall 1- or 2-year post-transplant (LTx) outcomes have been unchanged while waitlist mortality has been reduced. However, these studies exclude retransplant (reLTx) recipients. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of liver retransplants in evaluating the impact of the Share35 policy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database over the period June 2011-June 2015 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19,748 LTx and 312 reLTx recipients were identified. Of the LTx recipients, 9626 (48.7%) underwent transplant pre-Share 35 and 10,122 (51.3%) post-Share 35. 123 (39.4%) reLTx recipients underwent retransplantation pre-Share 35 and 189 (60.6%) post-Share 35. ReLTx recipients experienced improved 2-year graft survival post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (67% vs. 21.1%). Patient survival also improved at 2-years for reLTx recipients post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (69.2% vs. 33.1%). Transplant post-Share 35 was protective for both 2-year graft (HR = 0.669, CI = 0.454-0.985, p = 0.04) and patient (HR = 0.659, CI = 0.44-0.987, p = 0.003) survival.

CONCLUSION

Share35 is associated with improved outcomes after retransplantation.

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.

Analysis of Indications and Results in Liver Retransplantation: Is Late Retransplantation Worthwhile?

BACKGROUND

Liver retransplantation (LrT) is the only therapeutic option for irreversible hepatic graft failure. Despite various improvements, its technical complexity entails a greater morbidity in the short and long term. The main goal of the study was to analyze the activity of LrT at our center, as well as its indications, timing, postoperative evolution, and the long-term survival of patients.

METHODS

We designed a descriptive study of a cohort of patients who underwent LrT in a Spanish Hepatic Transplant Unit, between April 1, 2002 and December 31, 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 366 primary orthotopic liver transplantations were performed, 20 of which were LrTs, resulting in a 5.5% retransplantation rate. The most frequent indication for LrT was hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) (35%). Twenty-five percent of the LrTs were early retransplantations and 75% were late retransplantations. After LrT, 35% of the grafts showed liver dysfunction. The overall mortality rate was 45%: in early LrT this was 25% and in late LrT it was 46.7%. Graft actuarial survival at 1 month post-LrT was 75% and at 5 years it was 63.6%. The overall actuarial survival after LrT at month 1, year 1, year 3, and year 5 was 80%, 69.6%, 58.9%, and 50.5%, respectively. In the late LrT group, the results proved less favorable, so it is necessary to define the minimum acceptable result before proceeding to a second graft.

CONCLUSION

Our LrT rate was lower than that reported by other groups in our country. The actuarial survival rates for graft and patient are comparable to those obtained by other groups.

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.

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.

Successful Hepatoatrial Anastomosis During a Consecutive Liver Retransplant in the Same Patient Shows Good Long-Term Results: Case Report and 2-Year Follow-Up

Liver retransplant is the last and only treatment for patients with irreversible graft failure. It is recognized as a high-risk procedure; thus surgical difficulties are multiplied with every successive liver transplant. Liver retransplant is a demanding technical procedure for the surgeon, with no guarantee of postoperative and long-term survival. Here, we report a 29-year-old male patient who underwent a liver transplant in April 2009 due to primary sclerosing cholangitis with overlapping autoimmune hepatitis. The patient underwent liver retransplant in May 2012 due to graft failure. A second liver retransplant was performed in April 2013 using the classical technique. An inflammatory process involving the inferior vena cava and diaphragm forced the surgeon to open the pericardium from the diaphragm and clamp the cuff of the right atrium to perform a hepatoatrial anastomosis of the inferior vena cava. The next steps were performed as for a typical liver transplant. Postoperative stay was free of complications and was not prolonged. Immunosuppression regimen was kept standard. During our follow-up of more than 32 months, the patient continued to show good results. A consecutive hepatectomy in the same recipient is associated with an increased risk of intraoperative complications. When excessive adhesions limit a safe and functioning cavocaval anastomosis, a hepatectomy with the excision of the intrahepatic inferior vena cava and end-to-end anastomosis through a pericardial window for the extension of the recipient's' vena cava cuff are feasible options. We found that a hepatoatrial anastomosis does not impair good overall outcomes and long-term results.

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.

BILIARY COMPLICATIONS AFTER LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

BACKGROUND

Biliary reconstitution has been considered the Achilles's heel of liver transplantations due to its high rate of postoperative complications.

AIM

To evaluate the risk factors for occurrence of biliary strictures and leakages, and the most efficient methods for their treatment.

METHOD

Of 310 patients who underwent liver transplantation between 2001 and 2015, 182 medical records were retrospectively analyzed. Evaluated factors included demographic profile, type of transplantation and biliary reconstitution, presence of vascular and biliary complications, their treatment and results.

RESULTS

153 (84.07%) deceased donor and 29 (15.93%) living donor transplantations were performed. Biliary complications occurred in 49 patients (26.92%): 28 strictures (15.38%), 14 leakages (7.7%) and seven leakages followed by strictures (3.85%). Hepatic artery thrombosis was present in 10 patients with biliary complications (20.4%; p=0,003). Percutaneous and endoscopic interventional procedures (including balloon dilation and stent insertion) were the treatment of choice for biliary complications. In case of radiological or endoscopic treatment failure, surgical intervention was performed (biliodigestive derivation or retransplantation (32.65%). Complications occurred in 25% of patients treated with endoscopic or percutaneous procedures and in 42.86% of patients reoperated. Success was achieved in 45% of patients who underwent endoscopic or percutaneous procedures and in 61.9% of those who underwent surgery.

CONCLUSION

Biliary complications are frequent events after liver transplantation. They often require new interventions: endoscopic and percutaneous procedures at first and surgical treatment when needed. Hepatic artery thrombosis increases the number of biliary complications.

Irreversible Graft Failure Requiring 3 Repeated Liver Transplantations Combined With a 2-Stage Liver Transplantation: A Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Although repeated liver transplantation (RLT) for irreversible graft failure is relatively rare, RLT is the only life-saving option available for a patient with failure of a previous liver transplant (LT). In cases in which failure of a previous LT is combined with TLS and exsanguination, waiting for organ allocation is not feasible and 2-stage liver transplantation (TSLT) is required. The aim of our case report was to describe the clinical management, including the criteria informing clinical decisions, for a patient who required 3 RLTs combined with TSLT.

CASE

A 55-year-old man was admitted with liver cirrhosis associated with hepatitis B and multiple hepatocellular carcinomas. LT was performed using an emergent deceased donor graft of marginal quality. The graft was unsuccessful, with the patient showing hemodynamic deterioration and primary nonfunction of the graft. A total hepatectomy, with temporary portocaval shunt, was performed, with a second transplantation performed 3 days later. The second graft was from a 71-year-old, non-heart-beating donor, which resulted in a second episode of primary nonfunction. A third transplantation was performed 4 days later. The patient progressively recovered with extensive rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

We report the successful outcome for a patient requiring 3 RLTs, with TSLT used as a bridge between transplants to reduce the duration of the anhepatic state. In selected cases, the combination of RLT and TSLT can provide a chance of survival from life-threatening liver failure.

A cost-utility analysis of prolonged-release tacrolimus relative to immediate-release tacrolimus and ciclosporin in liver transplant recipients in the UK

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) represent the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplantation. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the relative efficacy of CNIs ciclosporin, prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus, and immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus in adult liver transplant recipients based on randomized and large observational trials published since 2000. Based on the NMA findings, the present study evaluated the cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to ciclosporin or IR tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of immunosuppressive regimens in liver transplant recipients, capturing costs associated with immunosuppression, retransplantation, acute rejection (AR), and cytomegalovirus infection. Mortality, graft loss, and AR odds ratios were derived from the NMA. Costs were taken from the British National Formulary and the NHS National Tariff and expressed in 2016 pounds sterling. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Over 25 years, PR tacrolimus resulted in increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin. Relative to ciclosporin, QALE increased by 1.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with PR tacrolimus while costs increased by GBP £4645, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3962 per QALY gained. Relative to IR tacrolimus, QALE increased by 0.78 QALYs and costs by £1474, resulting in an ICER of £1889 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed the analysis to be most sensitive to dosing assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a UK-specific analysis of the projected cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, PR tacrolimus was cost-effective, improving life expectancy and QALE relative to both IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, yielding ICERs below £20 000 per QALY gained. The main limitations of the study were data source heterogeneity and omitting the economic and clinical effects of treating aspects of recurrent liver disease.

Epidemiology of Bloodstream Infections in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort of Liver Transplant Recipients

Although some studies have examined the epidemiology of bloodstream infections after liver transplantation, they were based in single centers and did not identify bloodstream infections treated in other hospitals.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined a cohort of 7912 adult liver transplant recipients from 24 transplant centers using 2004 to 2012 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification billing data from 3 State Inpatient Databases, and identified bloodstream infections, inpatient death, and cumulative 1-year hospital costs. Multilevel Cox regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with bloodstream infections and death.

RESULTS

Bloodstream infections were identified in 29% (n = 2326) of liver transplant recipients, with a range of 19% to 40% across transplant centers. Only 63% of bloodstream infections occurring more than 100 days posttransplant were identified at the original transplant center. Bloodstream infections were associated with posttransplant laparotomy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.52), prior liver transplant (aHR, 1.42), increasing age (aHR, 1.07/decade), and some comorbidities. Death was associated with bloodstream infections with and without septic shock (aHR, 10.96 and 3.71, respectively), transplant failure or rejection (aHR, 1.41), posttransplant laparotomy (aHR, 1.40), prior solid-organ transplant (aHR, 1.48), increasing age (aHR, 1.15/decade), and hepatitis C cirrhosis (aHR, 1.20). The risk of bloodstream infections and death varied across transplant centers. Median 1-year cumulative hospital costs were higher for patients who developed bloodstream infections within 1 year of transplant compared with patients who were bloodstream infection-free (US $229 806 vs US $111 313; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bloodstream infections are common and costly complications after liver transplantation that are associated with a markedly increased risk of death. The incidence and risk of developing bloodstream infections may vary across transplant centers.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Prolonged-Release Tacrolimus Relative to Immediate-Release Tacrolimus in Liver Transplant Patients Based on Data from Routine Clinical Practice

Background

As of 2014, there were approximately 8300 patients with a functioning liver transplant in the UK Transplant Registry, with 880 liver transplants performed in 2013–2014 alone. Tacrolimus, typically used in combination with steroids and mycophenolate mofetil, currently represents the cornerstone of post-transplant immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients.

Objectives

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus (Advagraf^®, Astellas Pharma Inc., Tokyo, Japan) versus branded immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus (Prograf^®, Astellas Pharma Inc., Tokyo, Japan) in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

Methods

A model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate costs associated with immunosuppressive medications and retransplantation. Three-year patient and graft survival data were taken from a recent retrospective registry analysis and dose data were taken from prescribing information. Costs in 2014 pounds sterling were taken from the British National Formulary and the National Health Service National Tariff.

Results

Over a 3-year time horizon, the numbers needed to treat with PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus were 14 to avoid one graft loss and 18 to avoid one death. The model was sensitive to dosing assumptions, with incremental cost estimates varying between a saving of £1642 (standard deviation £885) per patient, assuming the same per-kilogram dosing of PR tacrolimus (Advagraf^®) and IR tacrolimus (Prograf^®) and an increase of £1350 (£964) using RCT dose data.

Conclusion

Data from a recent analysis of routine clinical practice data in liver transplant recipients on PR tacrolimus and IR tacrolimus showed significant differences in long-term graft survival in favor of PR tacrolimus. Modeling these data in the UK showed that, over a 3-year time horizon, one graft would be saved for every 14 patients treated with PR tacrolimus with minimal impact on costs when compared with branded IR tacrolimus (Prograf^®).

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.

Retransplantation using living-donor right-liver grafts

BACKGROUND

This study reviews the outcomes of retransplantation using living-donor right-liver grafts.

METHODS

A retrospective study of liver retransplants performed between 1996 and 2013 was conducted. The retransplants were divided into the DD group (with deceased donors) and the LD group (with living donors). Survival outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The DD group contained 23 patients and 27 retransplants using whole-liver grafts and the LD group contained 11 patients and 11 retransplants using right-liver grafts. Vascular and biliary complications were the main indications for retransplantation in both groups. The LD group had significantly younger donors, lighter grafts, shorter cold ischemia and longer operations. The two groups were comparable in age, preoperative liver function, warm ischemia, blood loss, transfusion, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, hospital mortality, complication and graft loss. The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year patient survival rates were 78.3%, 73.7% and 63.8%, respectively, in the DD group. The LD group had the corresponding rates all at 90.9% (P = 0.246). The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year graft survival rates were 74.1%, 65.8% and 61.5%, respectively, in the DD group. The LD group had the corresponding rates all at 90.9% (P = 0.132).

CONCLUSION

Excellent long-term survival after retransplantation using living-donor right-liver grafts can be achieved.

Liver physiology and liver diseases in the elderly

The liver experiences various changes with aging that could affect clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with liver diseases. Both liver volume and blood flow decrease significantly with age. These changes and decreased cytochrome P450 activity can affect drug metabolism, increasing susceptibility to drug-induced liver injury. Immune responses against pathogens or neoplastic cells are lower in the elderly, although these individuals may be predisposed to autoimmunity through impairment of dendritic cell maturation and reduction of regulatory T cells. These changes in immune functions could alter the pathogenesis of viral hepatitis and autoimmune liver diseases, as well as the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. Moreover, elderly patients have significantly decreased reserve functions of various organs, reducing their tolerability to treatments for liver diseases. Collectively, aged patients show various changes of the liver and other organs that could affect the clinical characteristics and management of liver diseases in these patients.